Margaret Court is entitled to her opinion on gay marriage

She and all the like minded people need to watch "All the little things | Panti | TEDxDublin" https://youtu.be/hIhsv18lrqY *mike drop* I would hope that anyone who can reason would after watching that then see that what she wants is to make same-sex marriage something less. What she says is an oppressive act to me. You will understand why I see her as an oppressor if you have heard the message in the video. I see that view as homophobic and totally unacceptable, and twice as bad when a public figure says this. Her logic is irrational and she needs to meet same-sex couples before shooting her mouth off in public.

Many ethnic groups in South East Asia & the Pacific area don't just have 2 genders, for example the Bugis people of Sulawesi have 5. From my 65 years of life experience I'd say that was closer to reality than just 2. I find it odd that people selectively take the bits they like from the Bible & try to impose it on the rest of us.

Marriage equality is an interesting subject. Marriage has been given its definition through the Bible from God. Whether you believe God or not, the definition is written in the Bible and has been the basis of our understanding of marriage. Marriage has been understood this way for thousands of years and changing its definition is wrong. Create a new word to represent "gay marriage", but do not re-define a word which is not only religious but also given from God.

I've been defending Margaret Court's right to her views about same sex marriage but if the online reporting, albeit on a Christian radio station, of her "of the devil" comments and comments alleging that anti-bullying programs such as the Safe Schools program are brain washing children (presumably to a pro-gay marriage position) are correct, she' s being very foolish, given all of the media attention she's getting to every word she utters at the moment. It would seem she's not for any sort of "middle road" in the gay marriage debate.

Once again my comment has been edited what a joke

Hey Buddy, once upon a time the gay community publicly stated that they would not force people to participate in a gay marriage if it became legal in Canada. Guess what,people's personal freedoms under the Charter of Rights ( freedom of moral conscience) is being trampled by that very group.

I'm wondering how many people criticising Margaret Court at the moment actually watched her being interviewed on The Project. I missed it when it was live so I watched it online before posting these comments. I reckon that no where in the interview did she say hurtful things about LGBTIs, or about, for example, Casey Dellacqua, despite what's being tweeted, and being spoken in the media. Margaret essentially said she had nothing against Casey and that she could do what she wanted to do. The problem is that because she's standing up for her beliefs about marriage being between a man and a woman, many people think, by inference, she's criticising those who think otherwise. On numerous occasions during the interview, for which, presumably, she was approached by The Project team because of the open letter she'd recently written (i.e. she didn't actively seek the interview to "push" her views), she emphasised her single point relating to the definition of marriage from a Biblical perspective, and never uttered an unkind word about LGBTIs. When asked the leading questions by panel members, she had the guts to say what she believes, and Christians around Australia, including her congregation, would have been dismayed if she had not. I'm so thankful for the freedom of speech we have in Australia. In this debate I believe that there can be no resolution to the reasonable satisfaction of most Australians without the willingness by people at the most passionate or extreme ends of the spectrum of views to find a middle ground. My late mother told me a wise story once. It was about two people fighting over one remaining orange. She said, "if only they'd talked about it to find out what each really wanted, because they'd have discovered that one wanted the rind and the other wanted the juice". Based on what Margaret Court said in her interview, I wonder if she might find merit in my comments in an earlier posting about the idea of changing the situation in Australia to all relationships, as civil unions, being legalised only in the civil jurisdiction.

Have some respect Margaret Court is Australian icon. She is speaking as a christian not a tennis player . I am ashamed NOT one priest Bishop or Arch Bishop has not stood up to support her . She is if I can say with respect the only one with guts to stand up & speak for millions of Australians. Good on you Margaret I believe in no marriage for same sex people. This does not mean I hate these people my opinion is important too. Leave Margaret Court arena out of it Any person boycotting the tennis take Australian off your passport . Remember Margaret Court is a lady we should all be proud of . .

I don't think you fully understand what freedom of speech is. It is the right to state your opinion without intervention from the State, and she certainly has that. The police have not filed charges against her and she is not about to be hauled before a judge. However, her right to free speech doesn't extend to a right not to be questioned, challenged or disagreed with. She has her right to express her views; those who support gay rights and/or same sex marriage have exactly the same rights. That's free speech. And while Australia isn't a model of freedom of speech, it's certainly not under threat in this instance.

I didn't know that about her stand on apartheid. I did think her attack on Casey D was disgraceful, and fully deserving of the criticism it received.

Margaret is going to have trouble planning her travel arrangements - Jetstar is off the list, being in the Qantas family and Richard Branson is a strong supporter of gay marriage, so that only leaves Tiger, an offshore company. Don't know much about their viewpoint on this, If they're supportive she'll have to drive everywhere.

Of course Margaret Court is entitled to her opinion, no one can argue with that. What people can argue with is when she chooses to voice her opinion publicly, she has to cop the opposition that comes her way. Margaret Court chose to announce that she will never again fly with Qantas, a decision made solely on their CEO voicing his support for same sex marriage. Court chose to let Qantas know that them voicing their opinion had consequences, in the form of losing her and possibly other passengers. Now Court has to accept that voicing her opinion has consequences too, it may cost her Margaret Count Arena

I served my country overseas in the military so people like Margaret Court can express their views in a free and democratic society, a privilege denied to many. Sadly, freedom of speech in Australia only applies if you are gay or transgender

Funnily enough, Court did express support for apartheid at the time. That, along with her disgraceful attack on Casey Dellacqua make her basically fair game as far as I'm concerned. Being anti gay marriage doesn't necessarily make you a bigot, but Court's documented comments on the matter most certainly do.

Funny, here you are, claiming that bigotry is the prerogative of the older generations - that's kind of an, umm, bigoted statement, actually. You know, stereotyping a whole group of people - that's a classic. Whether Court does it about gays, or you do it about people over the age of 50, it all has the same root in intolerance of the different. So have a think about that for a bit. By the way, I'm all in favour of same sex marriage, I am not gay, not religious and I'm over 65. And there are an awful lot of older people who think just like I do, and a lot of younger ones who don't.

From the point of view of all religions of which I'm aware, Christianity included, God as always "been in the picture" and it's God the creator's perspective on marriage between a man and a woman that people like Margaret Court believe in and support. It's my understanding that the origin of the word, "marriage", as used in the Old Testament of the Bible, is the first physical "joining together" (i.e. sexual intercourse) of a man and a woman which initiates their marriage and signifies their marriage contract. This is part of the background for the "religious" view that the term "marriage" should not be applied to non-heterosexual relationships. As I said before, there's a middle road which doesn't involve disrespect for people holding views contrary to our own, and this includes, in my opinion, lauding Margaret Court's unmatched tennis success with a stadium in her honour despite her having an opinion on same-sex marriage that is contrary to that of many Australians....but only a referendum could tell us how many, I guess.

But the Bible consists of the old and the new testament. Most churches still use both parts. Besides, even in the new testament there are references to women not preaching, therefore reinforcing the hypocritical nature of Margaret's comments - again, you either believe it or you don't, but you can't pick and chose which pieces to believe. I was hardly 'slagging off Christians' - just pointing out inconsistencies when people take certain phrases to suit their views, nothing wrong with following the main message.

qantus should try and do a deal with tennis australia and get naming rights to the arena during the oz open .... now that would be interesting

I agree with your point. Call it marriage, that's what it is. I think Patricia's general line of taking the legality of marraige out of the churches' sphere works.

I think (hope) he's trying to say he respects them as colleagues because they do a good job, and their sexuality is not an issue. I think Lord's not the clearest writer in history and needs to re-read his articles sometimes.