Tennis great Margaret Court feels victim after Gay Marriage stance

[Fearless]

Page 13 of Tuesday's Herald Sun (Vic)

MARGARET Court says she felt victimised and became the target of a relentless hate campaign for airing her views on gay marriage.

The former champion has admitted being stunned by the backlash after her controversial comments made headlines around the world.

The pastor, 70, who arrived in Melbourne last night, said it was never intended as an attack on the gay and lesbian community but rather a plea for the nation to retain its morals.

Picture of 'poor Margaret' clutching a bible defending her god's view of gay marriage.

A dose of hurt fawn after such nasty feedback she endured, but relentless in her stance for brownie points with the big guy.

Unfortunately for her, the 'racquet' she is making is not supported by her hopeful soundboard Tennis Australia.

With all due respect Margret, you made your bed, now sleep in it.

More here...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/te...-1226251748152

[Logic please]

Funny how that holey book appears to be employed as a shield, in the newspaper photo...

The pastor, 70, who arrived in Melbourne last night, said it was never intended as an attack on the gay and lesbian community but rather a plea for the nation to retain its morals.

I guess she doesn't see a fair go and equal treatment for all, as part of those "morals of the nation" thingies, eh?

[wearestardust]

This issue was raised as an aside in this Punch article.

I responded thus:

wearestardust says:

07:44pm | 20/01/12
Some comments on the Margaret Court issue following my previous comment.

Court says she loves gays. When considering a public comment, one should measure it against other comments, actual behaviour, and underlying worldview. I actually think that in Margaretspeak – or more generally, Christianspeak - “love” is a homophone for the word used by the rest of the community and means something quite different to what the rest of us think.

I’d like to sidle into this via Catholicism, as that’s what I know, and also with an eye to Matt’s affiliations. According to Catholic rules, raping little boys is at the same level of seriousness as pretending to be a priest and saying Mass, and both are treated less seriously than attempting to ordain a woman. I don’t say this to make a cheap point against Catholicism. From the inside, from the perspective of Catholic beliefs, this makes a sort of sense. But not from the outside; to the general community, these views are opaque and unpersuasive.

I have also heard it said lots of times by Catholics, including members of the hierarchy, that they love homosexuals. This has to be weighed up, though, against comments by Pope Benedict XVI to the effect that homosexuality and gay marriage are among the most serious threats to humanity. Let’s consider that: according to the Catholic church, men wanting to put their penis inside other men (especially within the context of a state-sanctioned relationship) is of comparable threat to humanity as, say, annihilation of all life by a nuclear conflict between superpowers. The supposed ‘love’ also needs to be weighed against the Church’s seeking to frustrate at every turn LGBTI rights and participation in the community.

Now, on the Drum, Adam Ch’ng chides Kerryn Phelps and others for saying that Court is Extreme. Well, as Dave, Darren McGrath, Daniel, and Loxy have pointed out, Court had some other things to say as well. Like:

“Politically correct education has masterfully escorted homosexuality out from behind closed doors, into the community openly”

“To dismantle this sole definition of marriage and try to legitimise what God calls abominable sexual practices that include sodomy”

“The fact that the homosexual cry is, ‘We can’t help it as we were born this way’, as the cause behind their own personal choice is cause for concern”

I suppose if one holds to the view that pretending to be a priest is morally equivalent to raping little boys, or (more pertinent to Court’s church affiliations) God burned 173 people to death to punish Victoria for decriminalising abortion, then these might not look extreme. But take it from me: they are. In everyday speech, when Court says she “loves” homosexuals, what she means is that she hates them. And her comments are extreme and hate filled.

And bigoted.

[Logic]

...a plea for the nation to retain its morals.

Which would imply that homosexuality is immoral.

[Fearless]

Originally Posted by Logic

Which would imply that homosexuality is immoral.

To them it's exactly that!

My mother said her church has a homosexual male in their congregation. I quizzed her knowing how much they are against it. She said that they don't have a big problem with it because he has taken a vow of celibacy.

Ahh yeah, ok.

[jonno]

Originally Posted by Fearless

To them it's exactly that!

My mother said her church has a homosexual male in their congregation. I quizzed her knowing how much they are against it. She said that they don't have a big problem with it because he has taken a vow of celibacy.

Ahh yeah, ok.

so he was the priest?

Other than that Margaret Court is just your typical preacher who thinks they have the right to sprout their nonsense in public and then act surprised or hurt when they are contradicted or ridiculed in the same arena.

[Stubby]

As usual, a section of the commenters get it wrong.

The thematic comment appears to be: "She's allowed to say her opinion! You gays are hypocrites!" Of course, no-one is saying she cannot say what her opinion is, just that her opinion is wrong.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Ah Christians... so many questions about them, such as "Why do you hate each other so much?¹" and (particularly in this case!) "Why do you act like babies when you are caught hurting others?" and "Why do you act like babies when you annoy others with your rubbish and are told to shut up?"

¹ refers to sectarian fights/wars/riots

Oh also...

Originally Posted by Logic please

Funny how that holey book appears to be employed as a shield, in the newspaper photo...

I think she is using it as a shield.

[crocoduck]

I could easily imagine that extreme fundamentalists move in quite restricted circles, usually surrounded by only those who agree with them, and that this may genuinely have come as a shock for Margaret. If so, it can only do good.

I'm hoping to see a fine display of rainbow ribbons in the Margaret Court Arena on Friday.

[Xeno]

Originally Posted by crocoduck

I'm hoping to see a fine display of rainbow ribbons in the Margaret Court Arena on Friday.

I'll be putting ribbons in my hair for the occasion.

I have not yet consulted my wife about this.

Oh, and absolute convictions may be relative

E pur si muove