Self or selfless?

The current debate on gay marriage ignores an important aspect of marriage - children. Children may not be in the minds of all gay or lesbian couples but if they are, they ignore the fact that it is normal for a child to have a mother (female) and a father (male). 

In probably the most high profile case, Sir Elton John and his partner have admitted that their son "faced 'challenges' and potential 'double' stigma as he grew up and have consulted counsellors to find out the best way of dealing with any potential problems." Hardly surprising when the boy's 'mother' (and possibly his biological father) will be 84 when Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John is 21 and his father (also possibly his biological father) is in his 70th year and both are/were male. In the US there was another bizarre story of a pregnant father giving birth to a bouncing baby girl. These sort of cases are so far removed from normality that they highlight the absurdity of change for no apparent reason other than self-gratification. I want, therefore I must have, no matter what the consequences.

Fresh from his Review for the Archbishop of Wales who appears to be somewhat accident prone in his choices, the liberal-minded former bishop of Oxford, Lord Harries of Pentregarth has stepped into the debate with the suggestion: "Instead of at first opposing civil partnerships, and then only accepting them grudgingly with gritted teeth, they should have welcomed them warmly from the first and immediately proposed services of commitments and blessing in church. They should do this even now." Few people are any longer interested in what the Anglican Church has to say but it will be interesting to see what trendy recommendations Lord Harries comes up with for the Church in Wales to hasten its further decline.

Many religious and non-religious heterosexual people supported civil partnerships despite reservations that some participants sought to have their partnerships seen as a marriage. In the church this has become a familiar pattern of give a little, grab the lot. Spurious arguments about equality have seen women's ordination and liberal sexuality take more bites out of the apple until there is nothing left but a barely recognised core. The Anglican Communion is now in its death throws as the Anglican Covenant attempts to paper-over the cracks. For some odd reason, once a band wagon starts rolling people jump on for fear of being left behind and branded yesterday's people, many clergy included. 


PM David Cameron has been followed by the Leader of the Opposition Ed Miliband in support of so-called gay rights but in reality it has more to do with electoral advantage than ethics or conscience. By implication Cabinet Minister Francis Maude now associates family values with being nasty!  There is a moral here. Trendy desires have done the Anglican Church no favours in her drive to become more relevant to society. What the country needs is strong leadership based on traditional values instead of pandering to current whims which favour self over selflessness.

UK Gay Men Want Church Weddings

An interesting statistic from care2 crossed my desk this morning: "A survey of gay men in the UK has found two fifths want a church wedding". Looking at the results, the study also reveals that "almost two thirds (60%) of gay men feel the Government should enforce the lifting of the ban with the Church who, despite the change in legislation, is refusing to bless gay couples wishing to marry in church".

These are remarkable statistics given that research in 2007 suggests that only 15% go to a church 'once a month' - now the measure of 'regular'! So are gays more spiritual than non-gays? Apparently yes but the feeling that the Government should enforce the lifting of the ban on gay couples wishing to marry in church has nothing to do with religion; it has more to do with human rights without regard to the sensitivities of religion. 

As ever some of the comments in response to the care2 article are as interesting as the subject matter with complaints of anti-gay sentiments levelled at anyone daring to disagree. Homosexuality is a fact of life which, in my experience, is accepted without prejudice. In Christian terms marriage is also a fact of life with the joining together of a man and and a woman for the procreation of children. A partnership is what it says, simply a legal joining together free of sexual connotation. The Church of England web site sets out its position clearly: 

"You’re welcome to marry in the Church of England whatever your beliefs, whether or not you are christened and regardless of whether you go to church or not. It’s your church, and we welcome you!" 

That welcome is to be married on the church's terms. It is not something to be imposed from outside. The LGBT community does itself a disservice in wishing to see religious freedom restricted in the church while demanding every freedom for themselves. 

Oh what gay day!

If God had intended this, why did He make male and female? He could have done without men and perhaps tucked something under Eve's arm to go with her hand bag. 

Apparently the Church of England has pledged not to allow any of its buildings to be used for civil partnership ceremonies. Now call me cynical but haven't we had promises and pledges before? Civil partnerships were not weddings but that didn't last long. As the Google headline puts it:

  Gay and lesbian couples will get right to marry in church. 

I have no problem with civil partnerships or with gay and lesbian couples. The treatment that many have experienced and still experience around the world is shameful but why is it that liberals can't let things be? Grab an inch and take a mile is their motto with the consequence that religion is becoming irrelevant to many leaving a vacuum to be filled by the one that appears untouchable.

What people want to hear

Recently the shadow Home Secretary found himself in hot water for his secretly recorded anti-gay comments which were contrary to party policy. Similarly former notables oversold themselves in a Channel 4 Despatches sting while attempting to earn more than a few extra bucks for themselves. It is a tempting device.

The general election campaign provides a golden opportunity for telling people what they want to hear. But can the parties deliver so much? Giving “All things to all men” is an impossible task but no doubt we will be treated as idiots and expected to believe it to be possible. Much sadder though are those who hear only what they want to hear making a complete nonsense of the whole process.

Postscript: Gay “Marriage” (2)

In previous blogs on this subject I have suggested that describing Civil Partnerships as “marriage” struck the wrong note. Whether or not civil partners are ‘joined together’ is not a matter with which others need concern themselves so should not be implied.

However, it appears that following the shadow Home Secretary’s boo boo, the Tories are so desperate not to lose pink votes that they had a meeting with Pulpit-crasher Tatchell: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gjjrw_a-7904Aq0Cy8jE6I2g0xLQ

As Tatchell said afterwards, "The best he [George Osborne] could do on gay marriage was say he would consider it." Not quite what he wanted to hear and certainly not what I wanted to hear but clearly what Osborne thought they wanted to hear.