
Advertisement
Advertisement
Reverend Richard Condie: Look, one of the things that ran thing tonight is the idea that God loves everybody. And that’s absolutely right but I think it’s a mistake to say that just because he loves you, whatever you want goes. I’m sure they wouldn’t say it like that, but something the Bible teaches is that Jesus was able to love while putting limits on behaviour.So legalising gay marriage is a bad idea?
Well I understand that committed gay couples want a label; they want acknowledgment of their relationship and I think they deserve it. But I just think there is something lost in the beauty of marriage to expand it to include something else. Marriage is a unique, beautiful, designed expression of commitment between a man and a woman and it leads to the establishment of family. Yes, it is about love but it’s also about much more. It’s about the possibility of family and that’s the definition. I just don’t buy the whole equality argument. It’s not about that.

Yes, it’s part of the beauty I was talking about— the complimentary physicality. The birds and the bees are the basic building blocks of society and that’s why it is what it is. For me it’s a definitional thing. If you add something to that definition then it’s not what it is.But as Gene pointed out marriage comes in so many different formats anyway. What about couples without children? What about polyamorous marriages? It seems the definition is already flexible.
Well, I think polygamy under any heading is a hideous aberration of marriage. And look, every definition of marriage is discriminatory. This is not the slippery slope argument but if we widen the definition to include gay couples then you still discriminate against polyamorous couples and so on.
Advertisement
Yes, I think we’ll have it before too long. People are saying the Liberal Party will get in, have two terms and gay marriage will be introduced either during or after. My world is not going to cave in but I think that will cheapen what I have. I think Australian society will be poorer for it.What did you think of Gene’s insinuation that Jesus was gay?
I found it quite offensive to be honest. My conviction is that Jesus was the son of God. He was the most glorious image of God becoming human, the most perfect person that ever lived. To imply that he was not the most perfect expression of God is a poor understanding of the Bible’s presentation of him.

Oh no, I don’t think being gay is wrong, I just happen to think that homosexuality is not what God intended. And there are lots of things in me that I don’t think are what God intended either. I’m not sure if God designed me to have white hair but I do and there’s nothing I can do about it. I think there’s just this view that if I have a sexual urge I have to meet it and it’s my right to act on it but that’s not what the Bible teaches. I might have a sexual urge for a woman who walks past me but I can’t act on it because I’m married.So people should suppress their sexuality?
Well, I know people who are gay Christians and they’re trying to live as God wants them to. They acknowledge they struggle with same sex attraction so they live celibately because they think just pursuing their sexual desire is not what God wants. They say “I’m not attracted to a woman so I don’t get to do that”. And that’s not the end of the world, for goodness sake. There are plenty of celibate people who haven’t died from not having sex.
Advertisement
Well it’s not about the individual, it’s about society. It’s about what holds us together and what society will be like in 20 years time. It’s not who I am as a married person, it’s about who we are as people. I guess that’s why I’m passionate about this.But are your views outdated?
No. My view of the Bible is that there are some eternal truths in there. They start in the first Testament and make their way through to the teaching of Jesus and I happen to believe that they are our ultimate reality. Although Australia is based on Christian values we’re not a Christian society so Christians don’t have any right in dictating the law. We do want to persuade people but we can’t force our view. And my view is that society will function regardless but I don’t think we should change the definition of marriage.So what would you say to Gene Robinson?
I’d say that his presentation reminded me again of the need for the church to apologise for all the hurt it has caused to gay and lesbian people. I for one am sorry for that. Let's find a way to acknowledge both marriage and gay relationships that respect them both, without diminishing either.Follow Julian on Twitter: @MorganJulianFor more gay marriage:If Julia Gillard is Such an Athiest, Where's All The Gay Marriage?After Gay Marriage, Why Not Polygamy?Gay-Proofing the Bible
