LGBTI couples with government certificates can’t be “Good People”

Welcome to 1984.

It’s a little late, I know, being the year 2013 and everything, but it is apparent that new-speak has replaced the English language.

Gay no longer means gay and marriage no longer means marriage. Well, almost. But you get my general drift.

If the Greens and whatever is left of the Labor Party and Tony Abbott’s daughters get their way after the election, then the final transformation will be complete.

So in preparation, I’ve done some thinking. It’s time to come up with new terms of convoluted alphabetic soup to give meaning to words that used to have precise definition.

As marriage now means precisely anything, it also means precisely nothing and is no longer applicable to what were previously called married couples.

Or, to put it another way, marriage no longer means a lifelong union between a man and woman that is open to children.

And what would have previously been termed as a certificate-wielding sodomite couple listed on a government register is now generally considered to be equivalent to a married couple.

(As an aside, I always find it strange that the LGBT community is clamouring for the government to register them all on some murky database. I guess it highlights their own insecurity – they need some faceless bureaucrat to tell them that they are married because deep down inside they know they’re not. And I don’t know of any married couple that thinks they’re married ‘cos the Man in Canberra coughed up some tacky certificate. Marriage is not about government. It’s about the couple. How’s that for revolutionary thought?)

Anyway, I digress.

We all know that sodomy doesn’t result in children. That means that however marriage is redefined, the gay married couples will always be different from the rest. There’s not much I, or anyone else, can do about that.

So we need a new term to replace the old term to reflect this difference. After all, words do have meaning and exist because of differences in reality and thought.

One suggestion that immediately springs to mind is the acronym ‘mawufliwitrabicc’.

It stands for ‘Man And Woman United For LIfe With the Intent of RAising  BIologically Conceived Children’.

Aren’t acronyms great!

So, no matter what you do or say, an LGBTI couple with a government certificate will never be a mawufliwitrabicc.

Actually, on second thoughts, mawufliwitrabicc is a bit of a mouthful. And it has crashed spell check.

Instead, how about we take a different approach. Let’s take two randomly chosen words, just for fun, and strip them of their original meaning. Kind of like what happened with the word ‘gay’.

Then we can combine them so that they replace the word ‘marriage’.

I suggest ‘Good’ and ‘People’. There’s nothing wrong with these words and I’m sure we can find other words to replace them, now they have a new meaning.

‘Good People’ from henceforth now means what was formally called a marriage. And marriage was formally the word used to label a couple that consisted of a man and a woman who made a lifelong commitment to each other that was open to procreation and children.

So, in the 1984 of 2013, marriage has now been redefined so that it encompasses that which it previously did not. Gay people.

And ‘Good People’ has also been redefined so that it excludes couples who cannot have children due to their bits being the same. For example, gay people.

And that’s great. Gay couples with a government certificate can be married but they can’t be ‘Good People’.

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of nine children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On


  1. Today’s marriages are not of GOD anyway they are a business contract between you, your spouse and the state.Nowhere in the bible were marriage certificates ever handed out or witnesses needed to enter into a GOD sanctified marriage.A biblical marriage is a commitment made by a man and a woman to GOD(not themselves)to love respect and honor one another and be joined in the flesh as Adam was one,then became two with the creation of Eve, so they become one again through marriage.
    Today’s marriages usurp GODS authority and put the state in his place and in doing so are sinful,(although God understands ignorance).Homosexuals are quiet entitled to enter into these business contracts the establishment and churches call marriage,but Christians need no certificates or witnesses,pagan ceremonies or priests.All Christians need to sanctify there marriage is their word to GOD,this is true biblical marriage and can never be tampered with,anything else is of Caesar.

    Post a Reply
  2. First I would like to address Kat. I have looked at your link and I shall skip over the obvious point of the website of your source and move on the the author of your post. John R Diggs has always shown himself to have a specifically anti-gay agenda. He uses out-dated terms, misrepresents studies and flat out makes stuff up. You can find any of these points yourself just by using the internet to complete quick search about him. Because of this I do not value him as a reputable source, and as he is the only source you’ve given (his sources aren’t fully relevant because of my above point, i.e his interpretation of the facts is what is represented) this neatly discredits your link.

    Bruce, I have looked at the link and briefly checked with its sources. I value the input and understand that HIV diagnosis in homosexual males has increased but a quick look online shows that so too has diagnosis in heterosexual relations. The problem faced will always be the way data is collected. Your link itself mentions that the increase could be down to a number of contributing factors (including the way in which HIV is diagnosed). While this is fine I couldn’t help but read through and think that at no point was it shown that HIV is solely a homosexual problem, they are just a higher risk group because of anal intercourse. But so are heterosexuals who practice unprotected sex. I think what your link shows is the need for A) more research into HIV and it’s causes, using better group samples (it states only 4 studies used gay men) and B) the need to enforce and educate all sexually active people that protection such as condoms are not just for prevention against pregnancy, but also help stop the spread of STIs and other diseases like HIV. So I thank you, Bruce, for bringing it to our attention, but I disagree that it reinforces any of your earlier points or even overturns any of mine.

    Post a Reply
    • Arlin, like I said you have already made up your mind.
      Dr. John R. Diggs, Jr. is a practicing Internist with first-hand experience in treating many of the problems described in this paper, but yet you choose to call him a unreputable source of info. Actually many Doctors and Nurses would agree with him, including myself, and his findings as they see and treat these sort of problems amoung gay people everyday.
      it is a very detailed paper that highlights the many problems associated with gay practices, infact the best I have ever read. So as I said before I presented pearls before swine and got the reaction that I predicted.

      Post a Reply
      • It was actually some medical professionals who called him unreputable. I merely agreed. Of course there are people who come down on both sides, else it would be a moot point. That doesn’t magically win the argument. He may be qualified, but medicine is an ever changing and evolving practice. I stated he is outdated in a lot of what he says. Most of that document outlines the old views dating back (in some cases) to the mid 1970s. Most in the profession no longer agree with these views (honestly google a lot of his views and read up, I urge you). You keep mentioning again and again that I have my “mind made up”. My mind is decided on the verifiable evidence shown in studies and the world around me. But I take this evidence and lay it out and learn what it shows. That’s how science works. I fear you are projecting because it is religion that has its mind made up. In the case of Christianity, even the newest views of the bible were written around 150 CE. That’s a collective mind pretty much made up.

      • Have you ever seen first hand the effects of gay lifestyle? I am guessing not. “Medical professionals”called Dr John Diggs unreputable because it highlights the gay agenda they stand for, and choose to ignore the facts because they don’t want to ” discriminate” against them and be politically incorrect. Can you explain why gays have an documented shorter life expectancy in regard to their physical health? Either you choose to deny the obvious or wait for yet another study to resurface, that’s if the info is allowed to be released, because oh no we can’t offend the gays.
        Anyways I have thrown enough pearls, lets see if you can get out of the pigsty.

      • This is the last I shall say on the subject. Yes I have seen the “effects of the gay lifestyle” first hand. In my experience (based solely on friends and friends of friends) most of the effects of being openly gay are positive. The negatives come from people who have given these people a hard time based on their sexual preference. A ridiculous measuring stick for morality and judging a good/bad personality. As for sexual health of the “gay lifestyle”, I have heard no more negatives for homosexual activity than heterosexual activity. Though this is based on talking to friends who are training or practising doctors and is therefore only anecdotal. Without using the masses of detail available on the internet, most of those studies are either based on discredited research (by Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute) or use methods of research that do not give the best results. Mainly- and this applies to the Diggs document- using study samples too small to be representative of the whole community. What’s more a lot of the studies use suicide to prove their point, but suicide rates in the gay community see a drastic drop in those individuals who are openly gay and accepted as such by the community they live in. As a whole, the idea that gay people have a shorter life expectancy is a myth, and what’s more it’s one that’s been challenged a lot by many different people. I realise you have played the somewhat conspiracy-like card that “political correctness” and other ideals are misinforming people about your apparent facts and covering up ‘real studies’. Of course this means this argument is now rendered moot by you as you could always just play that card and never have to give evidence because you can claim it’s been “covered up” by some masked government official with a “gay agenda”. Really some fresh arguments to the debate would be more stimulating but I guess I was expecting too much. Lastly I want to point out that I have not resulted to name calling or other such techniques because it would devalue my argument. All I’ll say is that if you want to be taken more seriously in the future, try to refrain from the pigsty analogies and redundant comments.

      • Arlin, you are kidding right? You are very uninformed of the real world.


        And just for the record, Gay and bisexual men are 17 to 31 times more likely to get HPV related anal cancer than heterosexual men.
        Also even though you may fob off the links ubove because of being ” out of date”
        They still appear in medical journals and dictionary’s as relevant information.

      • “What’s more a lot of the studies use suicide to prove their point, but suicide rates in the gay community see a drastic drop in those individuals who are openly gay and accepted as such by the community they live in. ” —————————– So how come the suicide rate among homosexual men in Denmark who are in a registered domestic partnership are eight times more likely to commit suicide than regular men? Wouldn’t those men be “openly gay”? Denmark is pretty tolerant of homosexuals. Last month we had richard on here saying that the suicide rate among homosexuals is low. How can anyone take you guys seriously when you ignore any reality that doesn’t promote homosexuality in a positive light?

    • HIV is not limited to homosexuals, but they account for most people who are afflicted with it. A report form the States confirms this. “Gay and bisexual men are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States ……. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of all new HIV infections, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 3% of new infections. That same year, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM. At the end of 2010, an estimated 489,121 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU. ” —————————

      Post a Reply
      • Homosexuality cannot be healthy if it’s responsible for 72% of all new HIV infections among males aged 13-24. Druggies are less likely to get HIV. There must be something that homosexuals are doing that is pretty dangerous.

      • It’s called “unprotected sex” and obviously it’s more common with homosexuals as there is zero fear for getting anyone pregnant. Though that simply means low sexual education is at fault and nothing else.

  3. Marriage has never been about equality. It is not a partnership. In reality Marriage is a property agreements, a husbands agrees to give away HIS DAUGHTERS (OWNERSHIP), to another men to be HIS WIFE in exchange for money/property.

    Mr. Gaynor shows he is fine with the definition or marriage changing…I am sure he is fine with the change that allowed interracial marriage.

    As for the Catholic Church..they are as bad as any Religious institution. They can’t prove God exists but they know how God wants us to live life…

    Post a Reply
  4. I agree Bernard. I’ve long said that there’s no such thing as a person of good character who practices homosexuality. This is because those who practice homosexuality cannot by definition be of “good character”, if that term still has meaning. Homosexual practice is one type of sexual perversion and perverts of any kind cannot be described as being of good character. I’m sure there are many “nice” people who identify as homosexual but niceness and goodness are very different things.

    Post a Reply
    • Hope you don’t work for Department of Immigration and Citizenship as one of the character test is

      “having regard to the person’s past and present general conduct, the person is found to be not of good character”

      Your comment and Bernards is so offensive and un-Australian.

      Post a Reply
  5. Funny how Bernard seems to pick and choose passages from his holy book to define marriage as he sees fit while bible itself was perfectly OK with polygamy and demanded the rapist to marry his victim no matter if he already had a wife or not.

    Post a Reply
  6. Doc,
    sodomy/ peadophilia often also involves queer minded people, or the sexually perverse.
    They infiltrated the Catholic Church to gain access to children.

    Post a Reply
    • Kat.
      bernie removed my post because he hates the hardcore truth.
      “Doc, sodomy/ peadophilia often also involves queer minded people, or the sexually perverse. They infiltrated the Catholic Church to gain access to children.”
      and the catholic church let it happen. for centuries. thousands of priests. untold tens/hundreds of thousands of kids.
      right to the top of the disgusting organisation. The Pope(s).
      instead of stopping it – the church let it fester and become normal activity whilst being protected from the laws of the countries they are present in under the veil of The Church.
      even up to a few years ago priests were being hidden and protected.
      when catcholic followers deny the epidemic child abuse of the catholic church they are infact implicit to the demonic acts.
      thousands upon thousands of aussie kids alone have committed suicide because they were raped by the catholic church, and shut up by the catholic church, not just by the rapists but by those protecting the rapists.
      i hope the royal commission exposes everything and forces a massive sell-off of its ill-gotten assets and compensates all the living people they have ruined.

      Post a Reply
      • Doc,
        Are you also prepared to slander the Anglican Church, the police force, teachers from teachers college and many other organizations as well? Because they also have people convicted of the same crime. Oh wait a minute, I think you may be singling out the Catholic Church because you HATE it. You discriminate against it and you know nothing than what you read in biased media reports. In actual fact you are the definition of a bigot.

      • You’re right, in the sense that generalised prejudice is wrong. But that is exactly what our friend Mr Gaynor is guilty of, and in spades, by labelling all gay people as “sodomites” and accusing them of an immoral “lifestyle” (dont’ get me started on the gross misuse of the word “lifestyle” to describe one’s biologically predisposed state of being). And so it is with those who instantly link “homosexuality” with “pedophelia”.

        I suggest everyone take careful note of Bayne’s comment, and then take it upon themselves to study the history of both marriage and religion. I wouldn’t think to deny anyone their right to practice religion, but religious bias has NO PLACE in politics.

      • Would you like me to go into detail of the medical facts involved in gay lifestyles?
        Usually those who have a low life expectancy are living immoral and less to be desired lifestyles.
        I can go into the physiology as well as virology and detail STDs for you as well however I am not sure you will understand, as you seem to have a very closed mind.

      • I would like you to go into detail.
        I would also like you to point out which “medical facts” you mention apply solely or overwhelmingly to only same sex relations because I imagine a lot of what you say will be a risk of almost any type of sexual intercourse, whether it’s gay or straight.
        Also (if you do respond) I’d very much like you to cite your sources so we can all read up and check your “facts”.

      • Don’t hold your breath, Arlin. Bruce is widely known as the “village idiot” of this blog.

      • Alrin’s post was addressed to Kat, but nice try. Since when have I been known as a village idiot. First I’ve heard of it. Are you sure you’re not just projecting your twisted opinion onto the general population?

      • richard, do you have any evidence that homosexuality is determined by a person’s genetic code? Scientists have been looking for the ‘gay gene’ for decades. I am yet to come across an academic journal that says scientists have identified a gene that is found in all homosexuals and is not present among heterosexuals. The fact it has eluded them for all of this time suggests it probably doesn’t exist. Why focus on the Catholic Church when homosexual academics/activists are working their butts off to get paedophilia legalised? There is a strong link between homosexuality and paedophilia.Watson RJ and Freund K used a foolproof method to identify the sexuality of paedophiles. They found that while 5% of men in the general population hold same sex attractions to adult males, almost 10% of the paedophiles they studied were sexually aroused by full grown men. ———————- ———————- Popular homosexual publications promote paedophilia. Here’s just a couple of transcripts that Steven Baldwin was able to find. “We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual, that they deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose . . . [w]e must listen to our prophets. Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children’s sexuality . . . . We must do it for the children’s sake.” – Guide [homosexual magazine], 1995. “I believe they [NAMBLA] are generally interested in the right of young people to be sexual . . . . I am glad there is a group like NAMBLA that is willing to be courageous.” – Ed Hougen, editor of the The Guide, in an interview with Lambda Report. “NAMBLA’s position on sex is not unreasonable, just unpopular. [W]hen a 14 year old gay boy approaches a man for sex, it’s because he wants sex with a man.” — San Francisco Sentinel [homosexual magazine]. Baldwin found pro-paedophile comments in other homosexual publications such as the Advocate, Edge and Metroline. Academics who are allies of the homosexual community have endorsed paedophilia, with one of them saying paedophilia constitutes an aspect of “gay and lesbian life”. Baldwin found these articles in The Journal of Homosexuality, The Journal of Sex Reearch, Archives of Sexual Behavior, and The International Journal of Medicine and Law. Homosexual rights groups promote paedophilia. The International Lesbian and Gay Association was alligned with the North American Man Boy Love Association back in the 1980s and 1990s. —————————- ———————————— What about the homosexual psychiatrist over in California who took a couple of 4-year-old girls to watch naked men prance about on the street because he thought it was a good educational experience for them? ————————– ——————————- The psych who took those girls to see naked men prance around is a member of the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists. —————————-

      • so Bruce can God cure gays? is that what you’re failing to say?

      • “Doc, Are you also prepared to slander the Anglican Church, the police force, teachers from teachers college and many other organizations as well? ”
        see there you go. yes there are pedos across all sections of society. but the % of priests whom raped children in the past vs teachers/poilce/etc…. is known to be of an incredibly disproportionate representation of the rest of society. try and debunk this/justify this/reason this/excuse this fact. nobody on this planet can honestly say there has not been an epidemic child-raping environment in the catholic church, and other religions too yes.
        basically, you’re all as bad as each other. anglican, CofE, catholic……. all preaching from the same pews.
        all run by the same perverts.
        and you worship them/
        shame on you.
        shame onb bernie, a supposedly family man of 5 children.
        if his local priest tore one of his kids a new asshole i guarantee he’d challenge the ideology of worshiping an imaginary friend in the clouds.

      • haha, I defied your so called logic, and now you resort to personal attack.
        I will be sure pass on your message to the, police Anglicans, teachers and magistrates, Australian lawyer society, as well as doctors nurses etc. that you think they are all as bad as each other.

      • Kat, I’m still waiting on you to give me the “medical facts involved in gay lifestyles” and as per my earlier request, cite your sources and point out which parts apply to only homosexual relations.
        You offered to do so and I have accepted, please follow through.

      • Sorry but I am not going to throw pearls before swine, you people have made up your minds, if you want this knowledge I suggest you google it or see your local GP and ask him/her about anal fissures, HPV virus and anal cancer amoung gays etc.

      • Kat, you offered to go into detail but when taken up on that offer you change your mind? That only strengthens my opinion that you were using hollow words. Nothing you have mentioned in your above comment is specific to homosexual intercourse except for you adding “among gays” to the end. Of course if I ask a GP about those things with regards to gay relations it’ll support your claim, but if I just asked for the information it would not. While I have made my stance on equality clear, I am willing to change my mind based on scientifically verifiable evidence, of which you have shown none. I feel it is people like you and Bernard who have already made there minds up, mainly because of the word of one book and not the fabricated evidence you claim to have.

      • By similar logic non-homosexual sex is a HUGE source of unwanted pregnancies and often abortions.

  7. The word marriage comes to us from the Romans. The Romans had same-sex marriages before there were christian marriages! Even one of the Roman Emperors Elagabalus married someone of the same sex.

    The Christians RE-defined marriage when they banned same-sex marriage.
    They also banned Interracial marriage and Interfaith marriage.

    And when polygamy was banned marriage was again redefined and in a way contrary to the Bible!

    Then marriage got redefined back again when Interracial marriage and Inter-faith marriage got re-allowed.

    Marriage sure has gone through a lot of changes.

    Post a Reply
    • Bayne, good point. Unfortunately, logic and reasoned argument isn’t going to convince the likes of Bernard. He like many people hold this view of marriage as part of their internalised world view and this is not merely able to be changed with argument. Bernard will hold steadfast to his homophobic view – despite the facts that don’t support his view. Such is the nature of a person’s world view. It’s almost impossible to change this.

      Post a Reply
    • Yes there is evidence of same sex whatever you call it in the Roman Empire, namely under emperor Nero, who killed thousands of Christians married his stepsister and had a young boy castrated and then ” married” him. His name was sporus He also committed incest with his mother, raped a virgin, I could go on….
      Do you see where your logic fails you? Apparently we are better off letting whatever go on and calling it love, according to you we should regress to barbaric practices of the Roman Empire. If one does learn from history you are doomed to repeat it.

      Post a Reply
      • That story isn’t even half as bad as most of the passages of the bible! A secular society is allowed to pick the good from history and learn from and leave behind the bad. It is when religion comes in that a situation cannot progress past it’s predetermined viewpoint. Religion does not tend to be self-correcting in the way humanity should be.

    • Yay! Let’s look to an Empire that collapsed in utter misery for guidance on what we should do today. The Romans used to conduct bloody gladiatorial battles, burn people alive, rape, pillage, wife-beat with unbridled enthusiasm, have orgies and were into bestiality… How about we have an unelected tyrannical dictator instead of the Westminster constitutional parliament?

      Post a Reply
      • Wait, do you really not see a similarity between what you just said and the bible (and many other religious texts)? How come you’re allowed to seemingly pick and choose between which bible passages you believe in, but you aren’t allowed to learn from and cherry pick from actual history?
        I just have a tough time understanding the hypocrisy. At least we admit that a lot of history is messed up. We openly show it to be, and that strengthens how we grow as a society in the 21st century.
        And since you mentioned “unelected, tyrannical dictators”, how is the Pope chosen again? Oh yeah, a maximum of 120 cardinals vote from behind a locked door. As of March 2013 there are an estimated 1.2 billion Roman Catholics in the world and while the Pope is voted in, 120 out of 1.2 billion is hardly fair representation.

      • Arlin, it’s not a question of ‘picking and choosing’ from the Bible. The Bible is an historical document filled with anecdotes of both the positive and negative sorts; they are meant to both inspire and discourage behaviours, to inform and to warn. This is much the same as other historical documents: they are evidence of a past, but not necessarily of a past to be imitated.
        You will be aware, I’m sure, that the Bible can also be divided into two main parts: the Old Testament and the New Testament. Has it never occurred to you that stories of polygamy in the Old Testament of the Bible might not be there in order to be emulated by the general populace of medieval, modern and postmodern worlds; that they might in fact have a cautionary role: to inform us about the way things were rather than to encourage imitation? As a side, knowing about what’s described in the Bible and understanding it’s purpose and application are two different things. You seem to suggest that Catholics, believing the Bible to be inspired, must ‘live’ the Bible in a very literal sense. Catholics, you might be interested to know, generally realise that the stories of the Bible have many purposes other than to be imitated to the letter. Such a practice, and claims that the Catholic religion supports the same, would be small-minded indeed.

        Seeing as you have a good enough knowledge of the Bible to see ‘the hypocrisy’ of those who claim it is inspired, you will no doubt be aware that there is a story in the Bible that describes two women both claiming to be the mother of a baby. King Solomon tests the veracity of their claims by threatening to chop the baby in half, give each woman half a baby, and thereby expose the fraud. In suggesting that people who refer to or believe in the Bible ‘pick and choose’ between its teachings, do you suggest that we are hypocritical if we do not support similar methods of convening courts today?

        You are no doubt also aware that Catholics believe that God in the Holy Ghost inspired the words of the Bible; and that God in the second person (Our Lord Jesus Christ) came to perfect the OLD law. The OLD, imperfect law allowed polygamy, supposedly in order to populate the world; the NEW law outlawed both polygamy and sodomy, ensuring that children might continue to be brought into the world, and in a way that provides those children with both a mother and a father-figure for their rearing and education.

        If you want to apply the word ‘hypocrisy’ to a way of thinking, why not try abortion on for size. Now there is fodder for a book on the hypocrisy of claiming rights for a woman, but not a baby; of claiming a difference between ‘aborting’ a ‘foetus’ a minute before it is born, and ‘murdering’ a ‘newborn baby’ a minute later…

        All this aside, Bernard’s point is that homosexual couples (or rather, politicians who claim to speak for them) are pushing for marriage to applicable to them, despite the fact that the term ‘marriage’ is currently defined as a union between a MAN and a WOMAN. In order for the term to be applicable to homosexual couples, the meaning of the word, not only its textbook definition, would need to undergo a dramatic revolution.

      • Thank you, Jaime. I genuinely respect you giving such a full answer. However I would like to point out (as maybe I didn’t make my position clear) I don’t have a problem with people learning from the bible. And choosing the good and leaving behind the bad parts. I was merely saying that if that’s allowed (which it is) then why can’t we do the same from the rest of history? Daniel was seeming to make the point that it’s all or nothing with the Roman Empire, and that if we agree with some, we must agree with it all. I disagreed and used the bible as an example. The bible, in some parts, agreed with slavery but now Christianity as a whole does not. That’s a good thing, but why can’t we apply that to other parts of history, too?
        I’d also mention that my first point was really for religion as a whole, using Christianity as an example. These comments won’t let me use paragraphs for some reason, so it seemed as though I was mentioning Catholics along with my earlier point. I was not. I didn’t want to single Catholics out, I merely know how the Pope is elected and thought it fitting to use as a counter-argument for Daniel’s claim of “…How about we have an unelected tyrannical dictator instead…” I know that Catholics do not have to follow the bible to the letter, but garner inspiration from it.
        My main problem is that if you’re allowed to take the good and learn from the bad, then why do people like Bernard continue to disagree with being gay? In the 21st century pretty much the only reason to disagree with being gay is because of religious texts, and if so much of them has been seen as wrong now and changed, why can’t this? I don’t come from a position where a love of God comes first. Love of humanity is my main driving force and therefore equality for mankind is of the utmost importance to me, whether it’s equality for religions, races or sexual preferences. We’re all humans and this is the only proven life we get.

        And I don’t want to get into a debate over abortion (not the issue here) but I will say that science is helping us to learn the development cycle of a foetus and therefore understand where a limit on abortion would be.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest