Gays are not persecuted mate, gays are the rulers! This fact is their big advantage over all below them, but actually it is also their weakest point of continuence.
diver dan,
So spot-on !

.

Dear Spencer (the author),

.

You wrote :

« Instead of trying to save his political backside for the next election and satisfying the LGBTIQ+ people, he [the Prime minister] should be representing ALL people … »
.

There is no mention of a prime minister in the Australian Constitution, Spenser. It is as though he did not exist. It does not say that a Prime minister “should be representing ALL people” as you suggest.

In a Westminster-style parliamentary system of representative and responsible government, such as Australia, it is said that the prime minister is simply “the first among equals”.

Section 61 of our old colonial constitution stipulates that “the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.”

Section 62 says that there shall be a Federal Executive Council to advise the Governor-General.

Section 64 states that “the Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish”, and that “such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General”.

That’s it.

In practice, several conventions and practices have arisen over time :

• The Prime Minister’s position has evolved so that the Prime Minister is the Governor-General’s Chief Adviser. In practice, the Governor-General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister, except in rare instances (such as the dismissal of the Whitlam government).

• The Prime Minister is the leader of the party or parties that retain the support of the House of Representatives.

• The Prime Minister has responsibility for advising the Governor-General of ministerial appointments.

So, the Prime minister has no legal or political obligation to represent “ALL people” as you suggest.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

If he did, he would probably never have promoted the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 given the extremely small number of so-called “ Bible-believing Christians” (conservative and fundamentalist Christians) compared to the total Australian population :

In an optional question on the 2016 Census, 52.2% of the Australian population declared some variety of Christianity :

Protestant 23.1% (Anglican 13.3%, Uniting Church 3.7%, Presbyterian and Reformed 2.3%, Baptist 1.5%, Pentecostal 1.1%, Lutheran .7%, other Protestant .5%), Roman Catholic 22.6%, other Christian 4.2%, Muslim 2.6%, Buddhist 2.4%, Orthodox 2.3% (Eastern Orthodox 2.1%, Oriental Orthodox .2%), Hindu 1.9%, other 1.3%, none 30.1%, unspecified 9.6%.

In 2016, 30.1% of Australians stated: "no religion" and a further 9.6% chose not to answer the question. Other faiths include Sikhs (0.5%) and Jews (0.4%).

The palette of Christian doctrines on LGBTIQ+ is by no means homogenous – quite the contrary – it is a vast and complex mosaic !

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is the largest Christian denomination in Australia (22.6%), states that :

« The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition »

Many other Christian denominations do not view monogamous same-sex relationships as sinful or immoral. Even the positions of the evangelical churches are varied. They range from liberal to fundamentalist or moderate Conservative and neutral.

Some evangelical denominations have adopted neutral positions, leaving the choice to local churches to decide for same-sex marriage (Wikipedia).

The Religious Discrimination Bill is highly unethical. It would make it legal for religious schools to discriminate against LGBT students and teachers.

Here is the testimony of Trent Zimmerman, one of the Liberal senators :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_ll5eMKajc&ab_channel=GuardianAustralia

.

Rhian,

<<What Spencer defines as “Bible-believing Christians” comprises a small minority of Christians who take literally a selection of texts that reinforce their own prejudices without regard for context or the intent of the author.>>

You've made 2 erroneous assumptions. The first is your use of the erroneous reasoning of the Appeal to Popularity, https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Popularity.

In describing Bible-believing Christians as a small minority you have committed this logical fallacy because it 'uses the popularity of a premise or proposition as evidence for its truthfulness. This is a fallacy which is very difficult to spot because our “common sense” tells us that if something is popular, it must be good/true/valid, but this is not so, especially in a society where clever marketing, social and political weight, and money can buy popularity.'

Secondly, you have underestimated the number of Bible-believing Christians. They include most Baptists, those in the Presbyterian Church of Australia, evangelical Anglicans in the Sydney Diocese, some in the Melbourne Anglican Diocese, some in the Churches of of Christ, and many Pentecostals. However, the issue is resolved with biblical interpretation and Rom 1 and 1 Cor 6 mentions severe penalties for many sins - including homosexuality.

The key to any argument is unlocking the exegesis of the text and not appealing to popularity.

Alan B,

<<Neither Romans nor Corithians (sic) spoke for JC or God! Just their own views, superstitions and the social mores of the time.>>

Those are your opinions. This is what the Romans 1:7 text states, "To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ." The "grace and peace" were from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ. He did NOT state the "grace and peace" was from Paul, the apostle.

As for the Corinthians, there is similar language to Rom 1:7, "Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 1:3).

Paul most certainly spoke for God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Instead of bringing your antagonism against Christianity, I suggest that you read the text accurately AND take a course in biblical hermeneutics (interpretation).

<<Simply put, a faith based belief in a flat earth never ever made it flat! And the willful refusal to look at the contary (sic) medical/scientific evidence. cannot make, natural born like that, homosexuality a sin! Or SSM a sin!>>

This is another of your extreme comments that erects a straw man logical fallacy - http://nizkor.com/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

VK3,

<<The God of love seems to be wanting when it comes to dealing with Homosexuality and particularly transgenderism.>>

The real issue is VK3's failure to be comprehensive in the knowledge of the attributes of God. You have missed emphasising God's omniscience (all-knowledge), omnipotence, justice, holiness, mercy, grace, and wisdom. Nobody will get off scott-free when they stand before God's judgment.