Gay Marriage

TO PRETEND THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT allows for marriage between same sex couples takes inventiveness to new heights. But this is what the liberal clergy and laity are suggesting is the case. It is not the case and they all know it to be true scripturally, but they assume, given the Christian message of love and forgiveness, it allows for an anomaly. Thus mere assumption and nothing else gives  legitimacy to gay marriage.

            

             We have an interesting paradox whereby the Gospels forbid, but the love based Christian message can so easily be interpreted as allowing for such an arrangement: and the politicians have fallen into line with such prefabrications. Which is why David Cameron has blessed the arrangement.

             

             I believe that the Gospels and only the Gospels are  the sole arbitrator; and those conservatives in the Anglican church have got it about right: and in this liberal climate are brave enough to say what they think in spite of being shouted down by liberals as bigots and homophobes.

            

            Gay marriage should not be allowed in a Christian church. In a push for the dominance of a secular society by the same liberals who seek the Christian blessing for gay marriages; it seems ridiculous that such a provision should ever be considered.

Those gays who feel a need of some kind, to stand before an alter and swear their fidelity to their partners without believing in the Christian faith, like many heterosexual couples do  (or why such poor Sunday church attendances? ), should be told to piss off by the Church of England.

            

              Homosexuality is considered a sin, not only by the Christian faith, but also the Islamic faith; which is why, in the Middle East, Arab homosexuals in the Gaza Strip seek sanctuary within Israel, where they are tolerated in a free and democratic society along with Jewish homosexuals.

            

             If any Christian church blesses same sex marriages, then they are subjecting  their faith to Christian immorality, in the sense of disregarding the tenets of their faith laid down in the scriptures. They are soaking up whatever the liberal progressive decides in order to remain solvent. They, the Anglican church, must hold fast to over five hundred years of history since the Reformation and remain loyal to the Holy scriptures and their literal interpretation.

            

             Gay marriage is anathema  to all of the Judaic Christian faiths. To pretend otherwise, and call those who hold on to their faith, bigots, will meet with little reward. For all forms of social prejudice against those who defer from the normal like homosexuals have  been a source of bigotry encompassing literally millennia.

EITHER THE Anglican church holds fast to the Gospels or it gives into secular arguments until Anglicanism fades away into becoming, well… meaningless. Its spiritual purpose undermined by liberal acceptance of all forms of behaviour, the progressive and material view of the world allows.

            

            The Anglican church is, in spiritual terms, fast become a backwater where all forms of sexual behaviour can find a home. Gay marriage, despite the politicians promising that there would be no legal compunction on individual churches to allow such practices, will inevitably lead to involvement by the European Court of Human Rights, should a marriage service be declined to a gay couple by a church.

           

           Described as adapting to the modern age, such ‘reforms’ as women priests, and now bishops - as well as expansion into the gay marriage market; are making a nonsense of the holy scriptures around which the whole Anglican faith is supposed to revolve. Modernism that goes against the foundation of the faith should be challenged, or at least ignored; it should never find oxygen within a 2000-year-old faith, that has served as the moral backbone to Western culture.

            

           I am no friend of the Catholic church. But it seems to me, it will carry the torch of the Christian faith far beyond the lifetime of a liberal and semi-secular UK Anglicanism. I lay emphasis on the UK because in other parts of the world where Anglicanism still flourishes; in Africa for instance, the church falls in line with Gospel teaching and if forced to adapt, I can the African Anglican laity going over to Rome.

            

           There will come a time; if the influence upon the Anglican church continues; when a point is reached when its Christian legitimacy is brought into question. For it cannot continue appeasing the liberal social agenda and still expect to carry the Christian cross before it.

            

           What if (as I expect will be the case in a couple of generations from now),  paedophilia is allowed to be practiced within the law? What if a paedophile goes to the European Court of Human Rights to overturn a British court’s decision? What if parliament in the spirit of ‘progressive’ politics allows such practices…remember, I am speaking of a time 20 years from now.

            

            But we do not have to look to the future to witness an attempt to make paedophilia legal. In the 1970s the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) came into being. In 1978, the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), now known as Liberty, took PIE under its wing and granted it affiliation. At the time the Chairperson of the NCCL was one Patricia Hewitt, later to become Secretary of State for Health; Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and finally ending up in a position she would have preferred all along…Minister for Women, under a Labour government.

            

            Along with Ms Hewitt at the time, the NCCL’s legal advisor was no less a personage than Harriet Harman, the current deputy leader of the Labour Party. Both welcomed PIE as affiliate members of the NCCL.

I have no doubt that what will be left of the Anglican church on these isles in 20 years time will submit to some form of legalisation allowing paedophilia. Just as with Gay marriage, emotion will abrogate reality, and smothered by arguments that the likes of Hewitt and Harman found credible in the 1970s, the modern liberal church will momentarily scratch their heads about before falling once more into line.

            

            Once  the church turns against or re-interprets its scriptural teachings to keep pace with the modern age, then the church is no longer the rock it once was but a piece of architecture of frail construction soon to face its demise…even after 2000 years.