Gays accused of scaremongering over Christian marriage

Those meddling queers are at it again!

The Church of England recently has reinforced it's stance against the proposal for same-sex marriage. Canon law dictates that marriage is between a man and a women. David Cameron, being the controversial scamp that he is, thinks otherwise.

No matter which side of the debate your approach it from - pro, anti or just plain 'meh' you'll have to agree that this has been going on for long enough. And I, as a fully qualified, card carrying, full membership paid, gay man seek to resolve this kerfuffle once and for all.

The case for same sex marriages is very much like the philosophical problem of an unmovable object meeting an unstoppable object. The Church wont budge and the Gays wont back down. There is no way to reconcile this problem in both organisations current states without either one backing down [wont happen] or one giving in to change [cant happen]. The only way for progress of occur is if some body loses out otherwise we will be here until Judgement day [and wouldn't that just be the ultimate problem solver?].

There have been many arguments on both side of the fence for or against the proposal. To quote Jerry Falwell [before being bummed to death by a gay-mob in 2007] “If we do not act now, homosexuals will own America! If you and I do not speak up now, this homosexual steamroller will literally crush all decent men, women, and children who get in its way … and our nation will pay a terrible price!”

Literally!

I can understand all sides of the argument and all of them are noble in their presentation from the outset:

• The Gay's want equality of marriage rights to their loved ones - and after a life time of being told that marriage is the ultimate in relationship status which fashion conscious gay man WOULDN'T want such an accessory to their lifestyle choice? Diva-licious! You fight long and hard for the right to be treated equal to the rest of society. To know that should you die that the law will protect your loved ones the same way that it protects hetrosexual couples. That your relationship is held on equal ground to everyone elses in the eyes of the law and society. The right to just get on with your life without discrimination.

• The Church of England [CofE] want to maintain the sanctity of their traditions, morals and authority. Understandable as their belief and power structure is based entirely on Gods teachings, is unquestionable and infallible. The ultimate in sacrosanct literature. Thus to them to condone the sexual conduct between two men is "not cool" but to conduct a marriage ceremony for members of the same sex is completely out of the question. It is Sinful. Whilst a lot of their Holy book is now open to interpretation *cough* hypocrisy *cough* this is one of the few rules that they find fairly hard to reinterpret.

• Conservative back benches want to avoid the subject all together. They want to remain focused on the economy - for growth, or not, and to repay off our debts. Definitely not because they can be seen as homophobic in any light, or be against gays marrying because of their belief in the above's doctrine. Definitely not that. It's just that now is not the time. They have yet to comment on when the right time is.

• Conservative front benchers want to drag the matter out for as long as they can. They want the positive publicity and to do something to raise the public spirits, some thing they so far have had a positive success rate in completely failing to do. In times of economic hardship the best way to avoid civil disobedience is to give them greater political freedoms - historical FACT. David Cameron wants something possitive by his name in the history books. Some thing as radical and controversial as his policies on handling the economic deficit. Apparently this subject is it.

Campaigners on all sides have taken to any form of media they can to present their arguments.

To quote The Guardian: Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, which campaigns for gay rights told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Many bishops in the Church of England today will be rather pleased because once again they are not talking about global poverty or the HIV pandemic - they are talking about the subject that obsesses them, and that is sex.

"I have not come across such a masterclass in melodramatic scaremongering – that somehow this is the biggest upheaval since the sacking of the monasteries – since as a journalist myself a decade ago I was summoned to a government briefing to be told about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

A compelling put down by Ben but not much in substance. Meanwhile the church submitted a 13 page document to the government with the following extract:

 Such a move would alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as enshrined in human institutions throughout history," it says. "Marriage benefits society in many ways, not only by promoting mutuality and fidelity, but also by acknowledging an underlying biological complementarity which, for many, includes the possibility of procreation.

 -------- FOOD FOR THOUGHT--------

Perhaps it's just me but I can also see how allowing same-sex couples to marry would be beneficial using the exact same argument used to purify the sanctity of straight marriage.

1. It would indeed alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of man and women. It would bring the concept of love and forgiveness closer to blanketing all colours on the Dulux colour chart of sexuality.
2. Just because it is traditional does not mean it is correct. Time constantly changes and moves forward without you. You cannot apply tradition as a valid reason for continued application of the past during a modern debate about future events.
3. According to a heck of a lot of anti-homo propaganda released by various organisations having mutuality and fidelity is something that the gay community could do with, so why the u-turn? Are we no longer in need of such things or are you saying that homo's are better then heteros at the relationship game?
4. If in order to be eligible to get married you have to at least be capable of the possibility of being able to procreate together then what about those straight couples who are infertile, do they get given the cold shoulder too? And what if a gay man DOES become pregnant through the butt sex? As a species of vast genetic variation that is CONTINUOUSLY changing, though it is unlikely, it is ALWAYS a possibility to happen one of these days. Massively unlikely to the point of nought but still a possibility.

Oh, damn those sneaky Gays and scientists! Always one step ahead . . .

The Bible is the true word of God. It is not to be questioned, tampered with or destroyed. This is a fundamental fact of Christianity and is infact written within the book itself. Thusly it should be taken literally.

 Leviticus 20:13 clearly states "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Out of curiosity, Laviticus, what else shouldn't people do?

Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)

Well, I dunno about you but I'm fucked. Especially the cattle bit.

-----------------------------------------------

Ulimately the the pressure point of the matter lies with a pesky political freedom that we have in this country [U.K.] - the right of every person to MARRY in their local parish regardless of religion. This could mean that, if handled incorrectly, the CofE could be FORCED to marry same sex couples, who want to be married [obviously], under law. This is where the weight of the CofE's argument stands. It directly contradicts what the CofE considers to be decent and within the laws of their religion. I completely respect their desire and right to maintain their morality and not be forced to contradict that in the slightest. Homosexuality is a sin that should be punishable by death - their words, not mine.

According to ANOTHER quote I found on The Guardian's website:

"The church's submission warns that despite ministerial assurances that churches would not have to conduct gay marriages, it would be "very doubtful" whether limiting same-sex couples to non-religious ceremonies would withstand a challenge at the European court of human rights.

This could make it impossible for the CofE to continue its role conducting marriages on behalf of the state, it warned."

I don't know about you, but if the CofE pulled out of the marriage business all together because of this I hardly think it will be the country who comes clawing back to say sorry. Fact is the church needs marriages in order to continue being relevant in peoples minds. The country is no longer a big believer in Christ as we used to be. Atheism and multiple faith centres are popping up all over the place. If marriages in parishes disappear from our culture it will only make our society more fair. However, this is unlikely to actually happen.

At worst one of three things will occur: The CofE will split and form a new secular organisation that WILL permit same sex marriages - thus gaining the ENTIRE same sex marriage market OR another faith will take up the mantle OR marriage as a religious ceremony will vanish from our culture.

Holding marriages to ransom is not going to work.

Finally, a Home Office spokesman said: "The purpose of the equal civil marriage consultation is to enable us to listen to all views, including those of all religions.
"Marriage is one of the most important institutions we have. It binds us together, it brings stability, and it makes this country stronger. We have been clear that no religious organisation will be forced to conduct same-sex marriages as a result of our proposals.
"We welcome the Church of England's response and we will be carefully considering all points of view before publishing the outcome of the consultation later in the year."

So basically they're stalling for time until the wording on their piece of paper is right. Bureaucracy in action!

No matter which way you look at it, this fight is BIG and its personal.

Here's four reasons why I've placed my bet on the long-term victory of 't'gays':

1. One is an ideology, the other is a sexual affiliation.
2. Ones been around two thousand years, the others been around for at least two hundred thousand years.
3. One demands repression of the self and servitude to a higher divine power, the other demands liberation of the self and servitude to no one [unless you're into that].
4. Homosexuality, against all misinterpretation of Darwinism, just has that longevity factor.

IN CONCLUSION:

I'm not a "fan" of the Church. Once the most powerful lobbying organisation in the western world in terms of law and moral decency, it's influence has dwindled drastically over the last hundred or so years thanks to a couple of world wars, growing globalisation, the spread of instantaneous information and a long chain of sexual scandals which has permanently stained it's Vestments. I would throw in the Dark Ages and all the horror that entailed but we cannot blame the church for that as we have no evidence by recorded history of that time as the Catholics apparently burned all the books.

To my mind the Church has done nothing to help me believe that it's traditions are as sacred as they preach or that it even believes that they are. Constant minor changes to the way the church opperates undermines the original text, the text which is the printed voice of their Lord, is now constantly 'interprited' to suit the needs of a modern society. The Church has undermined it's own arguement that same-sex marriage would undermine the meaning of marriage by allowing their own scripture to be reinterprited in the past to suit their needs for survival. If you can re-interprit that God does not want women to wear the Cloth of the Lord for example, why can you not reinterprit this?

Despite my opinions I'm actually all for the CofE keeping it's toys. If marriage is a union between a man and a woman ONLY by scripture then I'm all cool with that. It's a shame but the way I see it, marriage is not essential to live - unlike oxygen, which I favour more highly then religion. I don't think that it's particually fair to force a religion to do what it does not deem right to do - I do not deem it fair on anyone. Period.

However, marriage in a church has been the one factor that our culture has long accepted as standard whether you are religious or not. When you love some body and you want to spend the rest of your life together, you get married. It's what you do. Everyone knows this. Including kids. ESPECIALLY kids.

Imagine that a kid who knows this, who has had it drilled into them from their parents, families, friends, television, books - all sorts of media that they are to grow up and get married, turns out to be gay. Through no fault of their own. Suddenly getting married is not allowed. How would you think they would react to that?

Our culture has created this problem, it was an inevitable problem too. It's time we fixed it.

I'd like to finish this entry with a video from YouTube that I've found. It was taken in 2009 in New York [so not directly as culturually relivent but still important] on the subject of the State and New York allowing and recognising same-sex marriages: