ACL leader Lyle Shelton doesn’t want people to think he’s gay
Feb15

ACL leader Lyle Shelton doesn’t want people to think he’s gay

LAST UPDATED // Monday, 15 February 2016 13:11 Written by // Cec Busby

Lyle Shelton, the leader of the Australian Christian Lobby has admitted in a debate on Sky News the reason he doesn’t want marriage equality is in case people think he is gay...

The leader’s bizarre admission came half way through a televised debate on Sky News Karvvelas in response to a question posed by Australian Equality Party leader Jason Tuazon-McSheyne. Tuazon-McSheyne asked how his marriage and relationship to his partner of 18-years could possibly affect Shelton’s marriage to his wife?

Lyle responded that allowing gay marriage would make everyone’s sexuality a matter for debate.

“If the definition of marriage is changed – people will no longer assume I’m married to a woman,” Shelton said. “It affects me straight away – I’d have to explain myself.”

So you’re worried people assume you are gay if the law changes? questioned Karvelas.

“Well they may or may not...” Shelton equivocated.

Check it out at around the 12.30 mark

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

Cec Busby

Cec Busby

Cec Busby is the news editor of SX and online editor of GayNewsNetwork.com.au

Comments (4)

  • Neil Aitchison

    16 February 2016 at 13:23 |
    There is no hatred, bigotry or discrimination to uphold the millennia-old understanding that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. History has held this view for a reason - it is the only way that civilizations can thrive and be prosperous. The family unit is vital to how society functions and when it is distorted or changed, so does society. Already, heterosexual children are told not to use the terms "boy, girl, him, her, mummy, daddy, etc" because these terms are gender specific and oppose the same-sex/transgender identification - so heterosexual people (from a very young age onwards) are impacted in thousands of ways by the same sex marriage re-definition. Plus all heterosexual marriages change from being recognised as "married to a member of the opposite sex for life" to "someone I am temporarily having sex with" which, for me, would be insulting if I was in anyway assumed to be married just for sex or to another man. So every time I say the words "I'm married", my marriage is being damaged by the re-definition of marriage.
    The Rome Empire that had rampant hedonism and debauchery in the 1st-3rd centuries were not Christian (they killed Christians for sport in the "circuses" where lions would eat Christians) and the Emperor Constantine turned to Christianity as a way out of the horrors going on in the Roman society. So there is a perfect example of how we must also avoid the same horrors of rampant hedonism and debauchery by following the Christian teachings. In other words, we can be "saved from ourselves". The ACL are highlighting the unfair and dishonest name-calling and dirty political tactics used by the same sex lobby group to silence their critics and shove their agenda down our throats. This will be highlighted a thousand times as the same sex lobby group continue with their dishonest bully tactics and prove the ACL to be true over-and-over-and-over again.

    reply

    • Julia

      16 February 2016 at 17:50 |
      Slavery, segragation, male privliedge are all millennia old but no one would ever say they weren't discriminatory. Seriously simply because something's old doesn't mean it's right.

      The family unit stuff is BS and you know it. This crap about children being told not to use certain terms is you whining about the loss of your heterosexual and cisgender privlegde. Not everyone identifies within a narrow gender binary. You are not entitled to force heterosexual and cisnormative standards onto the rest of us and the fact that you think you are is bigotry. Asking and using someone's correct pronouns is respectful and courteous and is neither a burden or an imposition.

      What your arguments come down to is this - I'm used to society normalising and affirming my sexual orientation and gender identity at the expense of others, and now marginalised folks are demanding equality and I don't want them to have it because I'm a bigot. Conservative whining plain and simple with a side dish of theocratic authoritarianism. Conservatism is shameful

      reply

    • Atticus O'Sullivan

      16 February 2016 at 16:49 |
      Of course it is hateful, bigoted and discriminatory to uphold a "millennia understanding that marriage is solely between a man and a woman" because that definition is a lie. Same-sex marriages have also been recognized and celebrated for millennia. And suggesting that recognizing and celebrating same-sex marriages the same as opposite-marriages has changed the definition of marriage to "temporarily having sex with" a person is the height of bigotry. Any damage done to the idea of marriage is solely the responsibility of bigots like you. You are the one denigrating marriage not gay folk.

      It is also bigoted to compare the denigration of being denied recognition of gay person's most intimate relationships and hence their existence as persons to your "hurt feelings". Marriage is a fundamental human right and to deny gay people that right is to deny them their humanity.

      The arguments for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage do not depend on "hurt feelings". Those are only side effects of being dehumanized by the likes of you. The principles of liberty and the rights to equal benefit and equal protection of the law, and due process prohibit government from granting benefits to one class of persons and not another, in this case granting licences to opposite-sex couples and not same-sex couples. Freedom of religion also demands that government not favor one religious definition of marriage over others. Many clergy have had their right to free exercise of religion be denied when they have been forbidden to solemnize same-sex marriage according to their beliefs and doctrine.

      Your feelings may be hurt by christian hegemony being challenged and slowly dismantled but those hurt feelings do not justify denying gay persons equal rights under the law, equal benefit and protection of the law, or due process.

      reply

    • Atticus O'Sullivan

      16 February 2016 at 16:48 |
      Of course it is hateful, bigoted and discriminatory to uphold a "millennia understanding that marriage is solely between a man and a woman" because that definition is a lie. Same-sex marriages have also been recognized and celebrated for millennia. And suggesting that recognizing and celebrating same-sex marriages the same as opposite-marriages has changed the definition of marriage to "temporarily having sex with" a person is the height of bigotry. Any damage done to the idea of marriage is solely the responsibility of bigots like you. You are the one denigrating marriage not gay folk.

      It is also bigoted to compare the denigration of being denied recognition of gay person's most intimate relationships and hence their existence as persons to your "hurt feelings". Marriage is a fundamental human right and to deny gay people that right is to deny them their humanity.

      The arguments for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage do not depend on "hurt feelings". Those are only side effects of being dehumanized by the likes of you. The principles of liberty and the rights to equal benefit and equal protection of the law, and due process prohibit government from granting benefits to one class of persons and not another, in this case granting licences to opposite-sex couples and not same-sex couples. Freedom of religion also demands that government not favor one religious definition of marriage over others. Many clergy have had their right to free exercise of religion be denied when they have been forbidden to solemnize same-sex marriage according to their beliefs and doctrine.

      Your feelings may be hurt by christian hegemony being challenged and slowly dismantled but those hurt feelings do not justify denying gay persons equal rights under the law, equal benefit and protection of the law, or due process.

      reply

Leave a comment

You are commenting as guest.