Gays, Christians clash at Adelaide protest rally

[The Big I]

Christians clash with gays and lesbians
Police called to keep the peace

Woman pushed out of wheelchair


A GAY and lesbian rally against homophobia in Adelaide has ended in violence after it was crashed by Christian protesters, with one person being removed by police.

About 200 people gathered outside parliament yesterday to rally in support of International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia when members of the Adelaide Street Church showed up.

Rally organiser Jason Virgo said one woman was pushed out of her wheelchair and police had to be called.

"A small number of right-wing Christians came out and started waving their flags and getting in people's faces, yelling quite loudly, some of them got in a bit of a fight," Mr Virgo said..

"(They had) signs saying 'God hates sinners' ... no sign should say 'God hates'.

"It's an International Day Against Homophobia and for them to come to us and come to our rally and say things which we find homophobic, it's disrespectful.


"We would never go to their church and disrupt things the way they did today."

The Street Church's Damien Gloury said the preachers were mobbed and hit for proclaiming their Christian message.

"We're just preaching the Bible, we're quoting the bible and it says that homosexuality is a sin," he told the ABC.

"We thought we would go out and not try to disrupt because we do love everybody, it might sound like we're condemning people but we're not we're just preaching the Bible.

"We've been mobbed, we've been hit, our banners have been thrown down and these people have been hating our guts just for proclaiming the Christian message in this nation and that's what it's about."

A spokeswoman for South Australia Police said one person had to be removed by police for breach of peace, but no arrests were made.
.
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/gays-ch ... z1MQ4Y7920

I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised that this sort of shit happening, but still what a bunch idiots these people are disrupting a peaceful rally

[bobalot]

To be honest, I'm shocked.

Australians are not very religious. Church attendance is fairly low. Religious Violence? It's unheard of, even here in multicultural western Sydney.

[Crossroads Inc.]

The Religion of Peace strikes again! Oh wait,

On a more serious response, I am rather surprised by this as well for Australia. I mean even in America usually these groups will go out, protest, act like bigoted fuck-tards, but rarely do they get into a fight like this. I did find this rather telling:

"We thought we would go out and not try to disrupt because we do love everybody, it might sound like we're condemning people but we're not we're just preaching the Bible.

"We've been mobbed, we've been hit, our banners have been thrown down and these people have been hating our guts just for proclaiming the Christian message in this nation and that's what it's about."

Riiiiight YOU were mobbed because these people Hate YOU. It has nothing to do with telling people they are going to Hell just because of something your invisible Sky Pixie says. Which I might add id you actually READ The bible you would find it doesn't mention Homosexuality AT ALL.

[salm]

The Religion of Peace strikes again! Oh wait,

On a more serious response, I am rather surprised by this as well for Australia. I mean even in America usually these groups will go out, protest, act like bigoted fuck-tards, but rarely do they get into a fight like this.

According to the article the gay/lesbian supporters started the fight, not the christian counter demonstrators.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Doesn't really says who "started" it only that fights broke out. However I will take your word for it at this point.
Which fits into what I said, these sort of people tend to be assholes, but they usually aren't the ones whop start fights.
Usually they gode the other side into attacking and then sue the crap out of them. Which may be exactly what happened here.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

According to the article the gay/lesbian supporters started the fight, not the christian counter demonstrators.

According to the article, one of the Christian demonstrators claimed that the gay/lesbian supporters started the fight. I'm not inclined to much believe him. And if he's telling the truth, I don't much care anyway, because fuck their bigoted intolerance.

[SVPD]

Riiiiight YOU were mobbed because these people Hate YOU. It has nothing to do with telling people they are going to Hell just because of something your invisible Sky Pixie says. Which I might add id you actually READ The bible you would find it doesn't mention Homosexuality AT ALL.

Uh, attacking them because of what their religion says about you is attacking them because you hate them. You hate them for thinking you're a dirty sinner or whatever; you hate them for their religious views.

I'm not saying who attacked who here; the article just says both sides claim the other started it. It shouldn't be acceptable to attack other people who are protesting regardless of their views. If their protest is really a hazard to the public, that's what the police are for.

By the way, the Bible does mention homosexuality, but certainly not in the way that the people in the article claim it does.

[SVPD]

According to the article the gay/lesbian supporters started the fight, not the christian counter demonstrators.

According to the article, one of the Christian demonstrators claimed that the gay/lesbian supporters started the fight. I'm not inclined to much believe him. And if he's telling the truth, I don't much care anyway, because fuck their bigoted intolerance.

So it's for people whose views you disapprove of to get beaten up at rallies? Or are you just saying you aren't very sympathetic? I can understand unsympathetic; I don't see how anyone would think it was acceptable to start a fight at a rally because of the views of the other person.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Ok Fair point SVPD, I'll back down from that statment. It is more these sort of people always saying that THEY don't "hate" Gays or Lesbians. Every since my brain as a kid first held the concept that "God loves everyone" and "You are a dirty sinner who will burn in hell fire" at the same time, I have been filled with this vision of Church people beating people and saying "We love you and God Loves you" while doing it.

Which in no way excuses any actions taken against them from the other side. At this point, I want to learn more about what happend before saying anything else.

[Feil]

Riiiiight YOU were mobbed because these people Hate YOU. It has nothing to do with telling people they are going to Hell just because of something your invisible Sky Pixie says. Which I might add id you actually READ The bible you would find it doesn't mention Homosexuality AT ALL.

It does. Check 1 Corinthians 6:9, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 for the major examples. The only major section of the bible that doesn't condemn homosexuality is the teachings of that damned liberal pinko commie, Jesus, and those of his disciples. Female homosexuality isn't mentioned explicitly anywhere, but it need not be: for a woman to do anything sexual of her own volition is well established as a capital crime.

[Zed]

I'd like contextual explanations of those verses in the original Greek and Hebrew, because an English translation isn't going to cut it for that.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

So it's for people whose views you disapprove of to get beaten up at rallies? Or are you just saying you aren't very sympathetic? I can understand unsympathetic; I don't see how anyone would think it was acceptable to start a fight at a rally because of the views of the other person.

When your view is "you are subhuman and evil because of your sexual preference" and you go around shoving that in peoples face during a peaceful rally, I really don't feel any sympathy if someone decides to respond violently to your assertion. I might actually cheer a little bit.

[Broomstick]

I guess this just demonstrates why protests against homo and trans bigotry are still necessary.

[SVPD]

So it's for people whose views you disapprove of to get beaten up at rallies? Or are you just saying you aren't very sympathetic? I can understand unsympathetic; I don't see how anyone would think it was acceptable to start a fight at a rally because of the views of the other person.

When your view is "you are subhuman and evil because of your sexual preference" and you go around shoving that in peoples face during a peaceful rally, I really don't feel any sympathy if someone decides to respond violently to your assertion. I might actually cheer a little bit.

What do you mean by "shoving it in someone's face"? Literally getting right in their face, like you mean violence? Then it would be self defense, and I don't see that the view of either person matters. Or are you simply calling the proclamation of viewpoints you don't like "shoving it in someone's face" as a form of prejudicial language? I don't agree with the Christian group's views any more than you do, but I'm quite sure simply being exposed to it is not having it shoved in my face. If that was the case, then, again, it doesn't matter what the viewpoints in question were; someone assaulted someone else for not liking their message.

Peaceful protest is an important right in the political process. I don't cheer for any bringing violence to a protest, because I don't want that right undermined, any more than I cheer for rigging a ballot box against a politician I disagree with.

[The Romulan Republic]

According to the article the gay/lesbian supporters started the fight, not the christian counter demonstrators.

According to the article, one of the Christian demonstrators claimed that the gay/lesbian supporters started the fight. I'm not inclined to much believe him. And if he's telling the truth, I don't much care anyway, because fuck their bigoted intolerance.

So you'd attack them if they started the fight, but if your side turned a peaceful rally violent, you're okay with that?

Fuck you, your double standard, and your tolerance for political violence. I don't know who started this, but even if your side is right, it does not give you an excuse to piss on the law, nor does it give you a right to assume the other side's guilt.

[bobalot]

When your view is "you are subhuman and evil because of your sexual preference" and you go around shoving that in peoples face during a peaceful rally, I really don't feel any sympathy if someone decides to respond violently to your assertion. I might actually cheer a little bit.

Fuck you, your double standard, and your tolerance for political violence. I don't know who started this, but even if your side is right, it does not give you an excuse to piss on the law, nor does it give you a right to assume the other side's guilt.

Get off your high horse and learn to fucking read.

He didn't say it was right, he said he wouldn't feel any sympathy for them. I'll be honest, if some guy punched out a Fred Phelp's supporter at a funeral, I wouldn't give a shit either.

[The Romulan Republic]

Get off your high horse and learn to fucking read.

Likewise.

He didn't say it was right, he said he wouldn't feel any sympathy for them.

He also said "According to the article, one of the Christian demonstrators claimed that the gay/lesbian supporters started the fight. I'm not inclined to much believe him. And if he's telling the truth, I don't much care anyway, because fuck their bigoted intolerance." Not caring could be interpreted as not caring about the individual, or not caring about the assault.

I'll be honest, if some guy punched out a Fred Phelp's supporter at a funeral, I wouldn't give a shit either.

I would. Fred Phelps may be a repulsive asshole, but he is also a human being, he has the same right not to be assaulted as the rest of us, and attacking him would be sinking to an even lower level than him.

[bobalot]

I'll be honest, if some guy punched out a Fred Phelp's supporter at a funeral, I wouldn't give a shit either.

I would. Fred Phelps may be a repulsive asshole, but he is also a human being, he has the same right not to be assaulted as the rest of us, and attacking him would be sinking to an even lower level than him.

Are you retarded? Where did I say he didn't have the right not to be assault? or not press charges? I just don't have any sympathy for a douchenozzle (like these Christians) who purposely goes out of their way to provoke people by saying vile things and then gets attacked.

[The Romulan Republic]

There's a fine line between not having sympathy for the man and not caring about the act, which may be the cause of any misunderstanding here. I'm sorry if you feel I misrepresented what you were saying. It was not intentional.

[Justforfun000]

It does. Check 1 Corinthians 6:9, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 for the major examples. The only major section of the bible that doesn't condemn homosexuality is the teachings of that damned liberal pinko commie, Jesus, and those of his disciples. Female homosexuality isn't mentioned explicitly anywhere, but it need not be: for a woman to do anything sexual of her own volition is well established as a capital crime.

Small nitpick..you're still mostly correct but Paul did condemn it..but he wasn't a disciple...just a later convert. But he's almost thought of as a disciple after the fact.

"Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

[Crossroads Inc.]

Much of what is mentioned in truth "outlaws" gay sex, just male on male action. The concept of 'Homosexuality' was totally unknown to the Jews back when Leviticus was first wrote up.

A good deconstruction of how Leviticus is used out of context can be found HERE

[Justforfun000]

Then you can find a Christian site that deconstructs the deconstruction here: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6289

Lol. Ultimately I could give a flying fuck what Christians believe. They can't make any good argument that impresses me because it's all Appeal to Authority no matter how you slice it. Waste of air.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It does. Check 1 Corinthians 6:9, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 for the major examples.

Only if you read it in english. I will go in order:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Emphasis mine. First, what we have to remember is that greek has a LOT of words for effeminate, each of them with different connotations. The word used in the writings of Paul is malokois which if I am translating correctly is a man who is soft, or delicate. So, men who are not manly enough. Considering the fact that greeks considered ONLY sleeping with men to be as many as you can get, I am pretty sure that using this word to mean gay=sin is a bad idea.

The word used for those who "abuse themselves with mankind" is arsenokoitai, which has never... EVER existed in greek until paul wrote it. Now, it could be a compound of Arsen (man) and koit(to encamp, basically). Given that I dont know the language all that well and am working with lexicons, if someone here knows how ancient greek compounds are made, that would be great... but the best I can think of is male camp followers. Hookers.

Now for Leviticus. First, leviticus only applies to Juden.

Leviticus 18:22 is usually taken alone, however it is part of a list of things involved in pagan rites that the jews must separate themselves from, and is separate from earlier verses dealing with sexual activity. So, it is a prohibition on religious rights involving man on man sex.

As for Lev 20...

"If two men engage in homosexual sex while on a woman's bed, both have committed an abomination. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Yeah...

Granted, I have NO command of hebrew, and that comes from a gay christian group, but it is more in line with what my orthodox jewish friends (who speak hebrew) tell me, so I will go with that.

[Justforfun000]

As for Lev 20...

"If two men engage in homosexual sex while on a woman's bed, both have committed an abomination. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

I have never heard that specific interpretation? How can you call something a "woman's bed"? Hell...I didn't think they were even allowed to technically "own" anything themselves in the Jewish patriarchal society of the times...

[Alyrium Denryle]

As for Lev 20...

"If two men engage in homosexual sex while on a woman's bed, both have committed an abomination. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

I have never heard that specific interpretation? How can you call something a "woman's bed"? Hell...I didn't think they were even allowed to technically "own" anything themselves in the Jewish patriarchal society of the times...

Well, there is law, and then there are literal translations. It probably has more to do with the same bed a woman sleeps in. It may be an idiom, I have no command over hebrew