Like I said, very different views.
The actual quotes from the Q&A transcript are:
"Well, on the question of marriage equality, you are right. I took a position about, I think, three, four, five months ago, well before coming back to the Prime Ministership, because I concluded in my conscience, through an informed conscience and a Christian conscience, it was the right thing to do. And let me tell you why. Number one, I do not believe people, when they are born, choose their sexuality. They are gay if they are born gay. You don't decide at some later stage in life to be one thing or the other. It is - it is how people are built and, therefore, the idea that this is somehow an abnormal condition is just wrong. I don't get that. I think that is just a completely ill-founded view. Secondly, if you accept that it is natural and normal for someone to be gay because that's the way they are, then it follows from that that I don't think it is right to say that if these two folk here, who are in love with each other and are of the same gender, should be denied the opportunity for legal recognition of the duration of their relationship by having marriage equality. If you accept that - if your starting point is that homosexuality is abnormal - I don't know if that's your view."
and
"Well, mate, if I was going to have that view, the Bible also says that slavery is a natural condition. Because St Paul said in the New Testament, “Slaves be obedient to your masters.” And, therefore, we should have all fought for the Confederacy in the US war. I mean, for goodness sake, the human condition and social conditions change. What is the fundamental principle of the New Testament? It is one of universal love. Loving your fellow man. And if we get obsessed with a particular definition of that through a form of sexuality, then I think we are missing the centrality of what the gospel, whether you call it a social gospel, a personal gospel or a spiritual gospel, is all about. And therefore I go back to my question. If you think homosexuality is an unnatural condition then, frankly, I cannot agree with you based on any element of the science. And, therefore, if a person's sexuality is as they are made, they you’ve got to ask the second question. Should, therefore, their loving relationships be legally recognised and the conclusion I have reached is that they should. "
Presumably his biblical reference is to this:
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."
Interesting to note that apparently your most important takeaway from the above is not Rudd's statement that the fundamental point of the New Testament is "love your fellow man", not that "love" should not only be recognised as a particular type of relationship, not that such relationships deserve equal recognition before the law, but that he used the words "natural condition" which can't be quoted straight out of the bible, but can be from Aristotle. It's just a bit pathetic, really.
Personally, I don't think he smashed the questioner hard enough. He still couched his language - possibly due to personal beliefs, possibly trying not to entirely alienate the religious vote - using phrases like "they're born that way", when in reality whether people are born gay, or choose to be gay (or bi, or whatever else) is completely and utterly irrelevant to whether or not they should be allowed to enter the legal contract of marriage.
