"Those of us who have logic and reason on their side, however, will not need to."

He says after having a need to mention the attack on Kevin Rudd's godson.

Talking about homosexuality and Churches.

It appears that not all Churches share the same
views as the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality.

The following link explains:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches

We're told that the Anglican Church of Australia in 2013,
The Diocese of Perth voted in favour of recognising same-sex
marriage.

The Diocese of Gippsland has appointed a gay priest.

St Andrews Church in Subiaco, Perth has blessed a same-sex
union.

Dear phanto,

What makes you think I “needed” to point out that incident? That incident occurred nine days ago now. Had I “needed” to commit the Association fallacy by raising it, one would think I would have done that by now.

Furthermore, you’ll note that I used the precise format and grammar used by ttbn, changing only the necessary details to make my point. This alone should have been enough, for any reader not attempting to be obtuse, to understand the point I was making.

There is nothing to suggest that I needed to mention that incident regarding Kevin Rudd’s Godson. It is dishonest to suggest otherwise, I am afraid.

Philips:

So others need to do it but when you do it then it is not out of need?

Irrespective of what some churches think about homosexual marriage, there is only one Christian view on the matter, and that is NO. Most reformist churches are now little more than socialist, political organisations, who have lost their places in society by ignoring doctrine.

Dear phanto,

No, it has nothing to do with who the individual is. In no way did I imply that that was the case, and it would be less-than-honest for one to suggest otherwise. Please read what I had said to your good self again.

Further to the points I had made to you earlier, I would also point out that my statement - immediately preceding the statement of mine that you quoted - explicitly noted that one could point to undesirables on either side of the debate. This too should have made it obvious, to even the most casual of readers, that I was making a point about the futility of cherry-picking incidences to suit one’s narrative.

It would be most appreciated if you could refrain from engaging in obtuse interpretations of what I say.

Thank you.