Home   >   News   >   Local news   >   Christians turn back on lobby

Christians turn back on lobby

By on April 28, 2011

Australian Christians are being asked to sign a petition stating the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) does not represent their views.

The petition follows widespread outrage and condemnation of the controversial comments made by ACL head, former SAS brigadier Jim Wallace, on ANZAC Day.

The text of the petition, which was signed by over 250 people on the GoPetition website in its first 24 hours, read:

“The Australian Christian Lobby claims to represent the interests of Australian Christians in its operations throughout our federal, state and territory parliaments.

“We believe it is much more influential than it deserves to be, and that it represents only the most conservative Christians in Australia. The Christian political agenda in this diverse country is much more nuanced than the ACL’s agenda.

“We would like our respective governments to spend less time listening to and seeking to appease the ACL.

“We are Australian Christians, and we’d like you to know that the Australian Christian Lobby does not speak for us.

“We believe that its endorsements and policy statements rarely represent a helpful contribution to political dialogue in Australia, and we urge you and your government to listen to a broader cross-section of the Australian Christian community.

“We are much more diverse than the Australian Christian Lobby.”

Petition founder Luke Arms, who tweeted that Wallace’s ANZAC Day comments had been “the final straw”, told the Sydney Star Observer he was a Christian who had come from a conservative faith background.

“But over the last few years I’ve been exploring the idea of how that should play out in politics and seeing how public Christians tend to behave themselves – whether in the Christian Democratic Party or the Australian Christian Lobby or other groups.

“I’ve been generally disappointed with how that works and that’s why I started the petition.

“I’m angry that non-Christians hear what they say and then think that the majority of Christians might think that when there is so much more variety in what Christians think than what they represent.”

Arm said the idea of more progressive Christians setting up their own lobby to represent themselves in the public sphere was very tempting, but could come with its own pitfalls.

“There could be positive things achieved through a lobby group, but I’m just not sure what form that would take,” Arms said.

“But I’d rather see Christians involved in mainstream political groups rather than trying to lobby by themselves or represent themselves through faith based parties or a stand apart lobby group.”

To sign the petition click HERE

About Andrew M Potts

34 Comments

  1. Will

    April 28, 2011 at 2:33 pm


    My father was cremated under an Australian flag. He died a respected man.

    I was outed in 1977. Over the years our relationship grew and he loved me as Gay son. Unlike Wallace he was trained to kill. He only confided in me in his later years that he had got the job done. He wouldn’t spit on Wallace.

    During the Monday (ANZAC) Dawn Service while giving homage to my father I did not expect a personal attack, let alone by the likes of Wallace. How dare he perpetrate the attack on this day of remembrance.

    Tony Abbot giving court to Wallace not only diminishes himself, but also shames me.

  2. Richard Lutz

    April 29, 2011 at 2:09 am


    Mr Wallace was right that the Anzacs did not fight for gay marriage, and would have been horrified at the idea as it validates same-sex families in which children are deprived of their mother or father. His tweet was mistimed, but it was his opponents and the media who made the tweet a major news story to further their agendas.

    Mr Wallace was also right that many diggers did not fight for an Islamic Australia, namely allowing Islamist fanatics to come to Australia and set up or join Islamic groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia, which want to replace democracy with an Islamic theocracy, outlaw homosexual acts, and kill their fellow Australians if they convert to Islam but change their mind. Good point, if not good timing.

  3. Pingback: Exposing the pretense of Christian unity | Open Parachute

  4. MarIa

    April 29, 2011 at 7:13 am


    Richard, last time I checked marriage and children were not mutually exclusive, especially not for heterosexuals.
    Plenty of straight people raise children without the presence of one parent, especially in these times when divorce is more common than marriage and women are paid cash bonuses to reproduce regardless of their ability to parent (or their age for that matter)
    Further, I was always under the impression that the Diggers fought to protect our freedoms, not so racist homophobes like yourself could force people to live by the beliefs of the rapidly declining religious extreme.
    I suggest perhaps a little more considered thought on your behalf in future, rather than blindly espousing the hypocritical rants of those whose sole aim is to oppress the freedoms of others.

  5. Dave

    April 29, 2011 at 7:47 am


    Seems to me the ACL is no different from the Taliban inciting hate and violence. The Diggers did fight for playstations but Jim Wallace wanted to incite violence against people of a different race and who are in the GLBTI community.

  6. Stephen

    April 29, 2011 at 8:41 am


    If you look at Australian society in 1915, you could well claim that the ANZACs were fighting for White Australia, aboriginal genocide and religious bigotry… how disappointed they would be to see Australian society now…

  7. Richard Lutz

    April 29, 2011 at 9:08 am


    I was saddened to read that Maria thinks its “racist” to oppose Islamist religious fanatics who want to punish homosexuals and do away with the democratic freedoms our diggers fought and died for. I also oppose Christian fanatics with the same views. I don’t care if the people who hold these views are Australian, Afghan, Finnish, Christian, Muslim or Jewish, they are wrong and must be opposed. So I hope Maria takes the time to think more deeply about the issue.

    Thomas Jefferson summed up liberal values best when he wrote: “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” Thus homosexual, incestuous and polygamous marriages are illiberal because they validate homosexual, incestuous and polygamous families, which violate the rights and needs of children in order to service the needs of selfish adults. Even if [unrelated] heterosexuals don’t have children their marriages nonetheless validate the traditional nuclear family.

    If you accept the same-sex marriage argument that marriage is a private matter between consenting adults, and that marriage is no longer linked to reproduction, why not let adults in long term incestuous and polygamous relationships get married? Our duty to protect children and society must be our primary concern, not the exercise of real or imagined rights or freedoms that undermine that duty. Primum officium.

  8. Beechy

    April 29, 2011 at 9:13 am


    That is really inspiring Will….. Richard you are an idiot !

    (petition signed)

  9. Dentarthurdent

    April 29, 2011 at 12:45 pm


    Richard, I’m assuming you knew all of the Anzacs personally, as you have taken it upon yourself to speak for them all? I’m sure there were gay Anzacs, and despite the fact that they didn’t go to war under the banner of gay marriage, it’s fairly presumptuous of you to assume that you know what their opinion on it would be.

  10. jl

    April 29, 2011 at 1:13 pm


    The Anzacs fought and died so that their children and descendants could live in freedom and make their own choices, in a democratic society that would permit free speech and open debate. They did not fight for their children and grandchildren to be bullied around by tyrants, bigots or dogmatic extremists.

  11. Dave

    April 30, 2011 at 8:25 am


    Richard Lutz your vile incest you are promoting does meet the definition of marriage people promote or accept. It is fundamentalist Christians who promote that. Your attempt to make this about incest shows your wicked hate of all people. The threat to the world is not a loving couple, but you with a bomb carrying out acts of hate. There is no difference between Christian Fundamentalist and the Taliban. So your hate and deception is exposed.

  12. Richard Lutz

    April 30, 2011 at 2:49 pm


    I wholeheartedly agree with jl (29.4.2011 at 1:13 pm) that free speech and open debate is essential in a liberal democracy. We should all have the freedom to do whatever we like so long as it doesn’t harm or needlessly endanger anyone else. He is also right that we should not let tyrants, bigots or dogmatic extremists (like Islamists, Marxists and Nazis) shut down free speech and open debate via oppressive laws, violence or vilification.

    I want to thank Beechy (29.4.2011 at 9:13 am) who called me an “idiot” and Marla (29.4.2011 at 7:13 am) who called me a “racist homophobe” because they don’t like my opposition to same-sex marriage and immigration by Islamic fanatics (as do Julia Gillard and Barack Obama). Their inability to counter my position with a rational argument and their childish resort to name-calling reveals the inherent weakness of their position.

    I have also been called an “incestphobe” for opposing incestuous marriages, a “racist Islamophobe” for opposing Muslim marriages in which middle age Iranian men marry 13-year-old girls, a “racist polygamyphobe” for opposing polygamous Zulu marriages, a “racist zoophobe” by an Asian zoosexual for opposing interspecies marriages, and a “freedom hating Nazi” by a gun lobbyist for opposing the public sale of machineguns.

    Dentarthurdent (29.4.2011 at 12:45 pm) rightly pointed out that I don’t know what all the Anzacs were thinking, and perhaps some diggers did want to marry another man, but I feel confident that few if any wanted gay fathers to deprive children of their mothers (just as Dentarthurdent is “sure” some were gay), and am also confident the Anzacs knew marriage is a public institution [primarily] intended to protect children.

    The push to allow same-sex marriage is primarily about normalizing same-sex families in order to make it socially acceptable for homosexuals to create families in which a child’s mother or father is excluded (thus facilitating access to sperm/egg banks and adoption). Creating such families amounts to a callous indifference for the rights and needs of children, committed by adults who have a duty to protect children under their care.

    Some people do not understand (or don’t care) that marriage is primarily about validating and supporting the optimal environment for raising children. When I hear crusading marriage equity and homosexual rights activists say same-sex couples do a great job raising kids I hear little voices ask “Where is my mummy?” and “Where is my daddy?” Perhaps you cannot hear their soft voices over the adults shouting “My life, my choice!”

  13. Shaun

    April 30, 2011 at 5:08 pm


    Marla says the diggers fought to protect our “freedoms”? Does that include the freedom of adults to do whatever we like with no regard for the kids they are supposed to look after? She says Richard wants to “force” people to live by his beliefs, but he only says he wants to restrict marriage to opposite-sex adult couples who are not related to each other, not force anyone to do anything.

    If Marla wants to stop young Muslim girls marrying Muslim men does that mean she is a racist Islamophobe who wants to force these people to live by her beliefs? Or does she support what amounts to legalized pedophilia? Dave doesn’t seem to think closely related Muslim homosexuals should be allowed to get married, so would that make him a racist homophobe?

  14. Dave

    May 1, 2011 at 2:17 am


    The racist and homophobic comments by the Australian Christian Lobby have alienated millions of Australians and caused outrage within the Christian Churches and the Defence Force including the RSL.

    In one small tweet, the brand of the Australian Christian Lobby has been killed. They were so destructive, they simply imploded taking out other fundamentalist. Those that support them are further alienating people with highly offensive remarks about Muslims and us good people. The wider community has demonstrated across Australia they are just as outraged as we are. The vast majority of media has been armed and is giving the self proclaimed lobby the death of a thousand small cuts. It is amazing to see the reaction in forums, on television interviews, and on talk back radio. The vast majority of the Australian community has been polarized against the Christian Lobby. People are standing with us as they see our suffering, and make it their suffering. The outrage is palpable.

    For we have all had our fair share of triumphs and failures, but we have never stopped our deep resolve to make Australia the land of a fair go. Within the next 10 years we will see all the areas of discrimination disappear as we continue down the yellow brick road that leads to full equality. We will continue to grow and prosper, will continue our pride in who we are and what we have achieved. And no matter what the lunatics say, they can never stop our determination and destiny to achieve equality before the law.

  15. Dave

    May 1, 2011 at 3:25 am


    Oh poor Richard Lutz. I mean a fanatic of hate now says he is the victim. Typical Jim Wallace style- throw hate and lies together then talk about free speech and blame the victim. Richard wanting to have incest and marry is mother is not my idea of marriage. Perhaps he could should think of the children!

  16. JoshO

    May 1, 2011 at 8:23 pm


    Its called freedom of speech people. He is entitled to his opinion and should not need to apologise for it. If you are offended – get over it.

  17. Richard Lutz

    May 2, 2011 at 12:54 am


    I want to thank Dave (30.4.2011 at 8:25 am) for his comment. I am not motivated by hatred and a number of non-Christian cultures supported and promoted incest, most of which was stamped out by Christians.

    As a matter of interest, a Swiss Green Party MP, Daniel Vischer, and the secular government of Romania, want to decriminalize incest. Marriage equity advocates (mostly Marxists like many members of the leftist Green movement) want to legalize incestuous relationships and marriages for much the same reasons they want to legalize same-sex and polygamous marriages, as they believe laws against incest and incestuous marriages are discriminatory and stigmatize people in such relationships.

    The Swiss Green Party, like its Australian counterpart, is a member of the Global Greens, which have a common set of core values that includes a commitment to non-discrimination principles. Australian same-sex marriage advocates and Greens often say they want to remove all discrimination from the Marriage Act, in which case incestuous and polygamous marriages would have to be allowed under Australian law. Marriage equity advocates are challenging the Canadian ban on polygamous marriage using much the same equity arguments that were used to justify the legalization of homosexual marriage in Canada in 2005.

    Once the traditional man-woman relationship, represented in the marriage covenant, is overturned as the bedrock of a society, any and all forms of romantic and sexual relationships are on the table, including incest, paedophilia and bestiality. I am a little puzzled that Dave says he supports marriage equity, yet apparently supports marriage inequity in the form of discrimination that stops consenting adults in long term loving incestuous relationships getting married? Would that be because it would be bad for children, families and society? If so Dave has much in common with Christians, conservatives and liberals who oppose incestuous marriages for the same reasons.

    Sometimes opponents have more in common with each other than their own friends and relatives. I sincerely hope Dave can get over his dislike of people who disagree with his position on some issues (I had the same problem, which caused great pain). He might like to try reading ‘Love is Letting Go of Fear’ by Gerald G. Jampolsky, which was of great help to me. Life is too short to spend it hating our neighbours.

    “But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you,” – Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:44).

  18. Dave

    May 2, 2011 at 7:54 am


    The “Freedom of speech” is one thing but people have “Freedom of speech” to be critical when you have a stinking history of inciting hate and violence against people simply for existing.

    If Christians and the public are turning on Jim Wallace, then I would say they have the “Freedom of Speech” to express their intense dissatisfaction and be critical of what he said.

    Jesus never said anything against gay people, and if a religion is to be based on what Jesus said, then it seems to me Jim Wallace puts words into the mouth of Jesus along with ANZACS.

  19. Dave

    May 2, 2011 at 9:28 am


    Richard Lutz I am not sure why you are obsessed with incest. Find me a policy of any political party that supports it?

    Same-Sex Marriage has happened for thousands of years and continues today. You clearly have no clue what Marriage is if you think it is about sex with your mother.

    My sister was raped by a Christian Priest when she was a child. Do I call all Christians rapist? No. Does priesthood lead to rape? No. If we follow your logic no person should be a priest. I could spend all day in any court in Australia and I will see Christian after Christian being sentenced to all manner of crimes. Should we make Christianity illegal? No.

    My local Anglican Bishop supports Same-Sex Marriage as he said simply, the Church never owned marriage. Yes they had a ritual, but weather it is Same-Sex Marriage in ancient China or Catholic Spain, clearly the church does not own it. In fact if a couple wants to commit (two loving adults not your mother and you Richard), then it is up them. Jesus never said a thing against anyone in the GLBTI community, yet people like you base your hate on things Jesus never said. You base your life on it. It is no different to Jim Wallace putting words into the mouth of ANZACS. Over a one third of Catholic Theologians openly support Same-Sex Marriage as do millions of Christians including Bishops, Nuns, Priest, Baptist Minister and more. The polls the politicians use to knife each other also show the majority of Australians are not with you but against your vitriolic rants.

    And if you think my partner of 10 years is related he is not. If this forum was not between us you get a good bloody hiding for insulting him. He works in a hospital and has saved more lives doing more for the community then you could ever do with your rants. You simply do not know me and your saying I want to marry my mother as that is what marriage is to you. I might as well continue saying you want to fuck your mother and follow your logic. Your outrageous and disgusting arguments have no foundation. You seek respect for your opinions but you do not give it. You disgrace yourself in public for no reason then your vile hate. I have had debates with some Christians and we have agreed to disagree. But to say my partner and I want to marry our mother? You are fucking coward hiding behind a P.O Box on your White Supremacist website.

    Scientist can replicate Same-Sex attracted mice and fruit flies, but that cannot cure you of your deep hate. The real reason you write into here is you are angry Jim Wallace gets all the attention. Go look back into your pond at your own image, and keep looking.

  20. rob1966

    May 2, 2011 at 1:22 pm


    Anyone who’s opposition to same-sex marriage is based on the slippery slope argument fallacy (ie same-sex marriage will lead to incestuous marriages which will lead to bestiality based marriages) has no position on which to really present their argument (looking at you Mr Lutz).

    There are no compelling arguments against same-sex marriage, hence the likes of Lutz throw up the images of incest and bestiality (we’ll leave aside that most instances of such are heterosexual in nature).

    Using religion as an argument against same-sex marriage is invalid; religion does not “own” marriage, and never did, despite their false arguments tot he contrary.

    Using the “production” of children as an argument against same-sex marriage is also invalid. Numerous childless heterosexual couples are permitted to marry, and no-one suggests their marriages are any less real.

    Using the welfare of children as an argument against same-sex marriage is also invalid. Same-sex couples are already permitted to foster and adopt children, and many do. Numerous studies in Australia and the USA have shown that children in such families are no worse off than those in heterosexual parent households. Indeed, children with same-sex parents are usually more socially aware, mature, and non-judgemental.

    Of course, that won’t prevent the likes of Lutz from making outlandish statements and claiming the end of the world is nigh. But then the fundamentalist types are generally blinkered in their approach, unable to admit that they are wrong even when faced with the evidence, and are more like a broken record than a credible debator.

  21. Iain

    May 3, 2011 at 10:36 pm


    Well said Richard. I totally agree with your position. Once the foundation of marriage is corrupted to allow same sex partnership, then we will quickly find it further corrupted through even more unnatural partnerships. I am sorry that Rob and Dave do not comprehend your point of view as they respond in haste and with emotion.

    I think due to the poor standard of education these days, they do not have a very extensive knowledge of Australian history and that the country was largely founded on Christian values. Thus, technically speaking within Australia, the church does own marriage as it has been seconded to the church by the state. Although this may not be the case now, it has been in the past and their argument is rather innocuous. Although rapidly deteriorating, modern Australian morals are based upon Christian values. This is an inescapable fact.

    It appears as though you have stirred up the hornets nest so to speak. I find it amusing that the very people who cry offense when someone looks sideways at them can become so spiteful and vindictive when they have the truth revealed to them. I feel sorry for the coming generations who will be raised with the confusion of not knowing which bloke is their mum and which one is their dad. I would consider that child abuse of the highest order.

  22. Dave

    May 4, 2011 at 8:47 am


    Iain,

    You want a Police State to support your love of our homegrown Hitler. What did you have ever expect taking Hitlers hate to his victims?

  23. rob1966

    May 4, 2011 at 2:42 pm


    @Iain .. now you are making stuff up.

    Show me where religion is mentioned in the Federal Marriage Act as being a controlling influence on marriage – it isn’t. So “factually” and “technically” speaking, no church “owns” marriage.

    Indeed, throughout history the Christian religion only ever controlled marriage for a brief period in the 1700s; the rest of the time it has been secular in nature (but don’t let that fact get in the way of your claims).

    FYI – in Australia last year 63% of marriages were undertaken without any Church involvement at all.

    Also FYI – a friend of mine is a teacher, and one of his students has “two mums”. Guess what, that child is in an “advanced” class, en route to entering a selective high-school, is a well functioning member of the class, and no other student or teacher has an issue with the child’s parentage.

    I feel sorry for those who feel the need to impose their own bigotted values on the next generation, and who are incapable of comprehending that the next generation is probably more mature than themselves when it comes to issues such as homosexuality and same-sex parents.

  24. Richard Lutz

    May 5, 2011 at 11:54 pm


    Thank you Ian (3.5.2011 at 10:36 pm) for your support, much appreciated.

    I want to thank rob1966 (2.5.2011 at 1:22 pm) for his comment. I don’t use religious arguments or claim the end of the world is nigh so please don’t try to portray me as a religious fundamentalist.

    Seems to me Ian is right that rob166 (4.5.2011 at 2:42 pm) does not have a solid grasp of the historical background to marriage in Australia, but I am grateful that he told us about the student with “two mums” who is doing well academically, as this allows me to make the point that anecdotal evidence like this is largely meaningless. Some children do very well academically despite having two parents who are closely related or three parents, but does this mean we should allow incestuous or polygamous marriages?

    It seems to me that the core argument for SSM is that the “right” to get married trumps all other concerns, which is the core argument for polygamous, incestuous and zoosexual marriages. The core argument against these marriages is that the public institution of marriage is primarily about fulfilling one’s familial and social duty to help protect children and society, not validate romantic attachments or any other reason. Marriage also has a powerful symbolic role, in that it represents an attempt (however flawed) to ensure the safety and well being of our children.

    I hope I have not caused any distress, as my intent is not to harm anyone, but I feel the need to make a forceful case to illustrate the point that the needs of children must come before the desires of adults, all of who are duty bound to help protect society and its children. I have been disappointed by the disingenuous and half-baked arguments of SSM advocates, some of whom naturally feel compelled to resort to name-calling to compensate for the weakness of their position (I don’t take it personally). So I hope advocates reflect on what I have written and they may come up with a compromise that will satisfy all sides (remember: children first).

  25. Richard Lutz

    May 6, 2011 at 10:43 am


    Thank you Ian (3.5.2011 at 10:36 pm) for your support, much appreciated.

    I want to thank rob1966 (2.5.2011 at 1:22 pm) for his comment. I don’t use religious arguments or claim the end of the world is nigh so please don’t try to portray me as a religious fundamentalist.

    Seems to me Ian is right that rob166 (4.5.2011 at 2:42 pm) does not have a solid grasp of the historical background to marriage in Australia, but I am grateful that he told us about the student with “two mums” who is doing well academically, as this allows me to make the point that anecdotal evidence like this is largely meaningless. Some children do very well academically despite having two parents who are closely related or three parents, but does this mean we should allow incestuous or polygamous marriages?

    It seems to me that the core argument for SSM is that the “right” to get married trumps all other concerns, which is the core argument for polygamous, incestuous and zoosexual marriages. The core argument against these marriages is that the public institution of marriage is primarily about fulfilling one’s familial and social duty to help protect children and society, not validate romantic attachments or any other reason. Marriage also has a powerful symbolic role, in that it represents an attempt (however flawed) to ensure the safety and well being of our children.

    I hope I have not caused any distress, as my intent is not to harm anyone, but I feel the need to make a forceful case to illustrate the point that the needs of children must come before the desires of adults, all of who are duty bound to help protect society and its children. I have been disappointed by the disingenuous and half-baked arguments of SSM advocates, some of whom naturally feel compelled to resort to name-calling to compensate for the weakness of their position. So I hope advocates reflect on what I have written and they may come up with a compromise that will satisfy all sides.

  26. Iain

    May 8, 2011 at 6:48 pm


    Well stated Richard. Although it is largely an irrelevant point to this argument, you have established for Rob that marriage is largely a Christian institution within Australia. For him to persist with his argument is to refute reality. Similarly, it is an institution designed to protect children, first and foremost. The tenuous rights of SSM advocates do not overrule those of the innocent children. This is despite personal anecdotes of children succeeding despite the fact they have been deprived of their God given right to a mother and father. For Rob to peddle such stories further demonstrates his tenuous grip on reality.

  27. Pingback: in the beginning, there was a petition | Christian Collective of Australia

  28. Owen

    May 10, 2011 at 1:07 pm


    Australia was built on “slavery”, it was never built on christianity. Just also remember it was Australia that invaded other countries not vica versa. ANZACS? in the year 2011? WHO CARES!

  29. RickFish

    May 26, 2011 at 9:50 am


    Richard, i think you need to move out of the past, In modern society the role of a parent is no longer gender specific.. there is no need for a mother or father so long as a child is well looked after by loving and supporting parents. Thanks to science sperm and eggs are available to people who may like a different flavour to you. i dont agree with muslim extremists and alot of other beliefs but that is not to say that i think they shouldent exist. it is a completely different argument AND it involves belittlement and in most cases violence towards others, last time i checked i didnt know of any militiant gaypride groups. humans arent built to function in todays society as we are unable to cope with the pressures and stress of life. I think this should point out that the human race is evolving and the rules are changing. If it has no impact on your life then i personally think that your doing a horrible thing to publicly announce your opinion and try to rob others of there freedom.

  30. reoh

    May 27, 2011 at 10:49 am


    Newsflash, gay men fought in ww1/ww2 as well. They didn’t just spring up a decade or so ago out of nowhere.

  31. bill Briant

    June 2, 2011 at 10:51 am


    Im sorry to see that Dave has a Little Gay Heart with Love across it,Yet I would say that he does not Represent US loving Gay Peopl at all, I only sense that he has a lot of rejection and bitterness in his Heart! And also there needs to be a standard for civilisation at a Base Point all!! What is Correct and what is Wrong?! There has to be a Starting point with all laws! (think)with your mind not your emotions Dave! People dont Hate for the sack of it,they just dont wont to see a society where Nothing is Right. I have said it before as a gay Man I do not Like the Idea of Gay Male And Females having Children. They Need a Mum and Dad! That is Their Right! and we need to give them that! (Good or Bad)it will still be a Balanced Family.
    Not Perfect! as it does not exist! Yet forgiveness Plays a Big Part in Life, For all of us! Ah Dave?

    Love you Dave! as a Friend. (no Sex)

  32. bill Briant

    June 2, 2011 at 11:01 am


    Waht was all that about last Comments!!!((*88*8?
    Stop the Jibirish!

  33. bill Briant

    June 2, 2011 at 11:04 am


    AH, What did you say! open Parachute.

  34. bill Briant

    June 2, 2011 at 11:18 am


    They should get over it if they feel disenfranchised,dont They know that (a house Divided against another part of the House Inhabitants cant stand! and that if they do not agree with the basic princples of the house Rules or Laws then they are in Rebellion!! Its not about HATE!

    Bill.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login