Homosexuality and the Anglican church

NEXT WEEK PARLIAMENT votes on gay marriage, and over a 100 Tories are expected to defy their party leadership by voting against the motion. Already there is talk of the Tory party being split down the middle over this issue. The Tory leading the rebellion, David Burrowes, the MP for Enfield Southgate, has received death threats under the heading of homophobe.

            The supporters of the motion accuse their detractors of being on the wrong side of history: they see this issue as equivalent in social significance to that fought by the suffragettes to get the vote for women. The pro- lobby comprise liberals in all parties and from all corners of the House. They see themselves as progressives and have a high handed opinion of themselves. They belief that once this issue has been settled by the will of parliament, it will be quickly forgotten, and the progressive agenda will have ticked up another victory for social “advancement”.

            What this whole issue reeks of is Westminster’s gay mafia within the Coalition and the opposition forcing through this legislation. It is a London centric issue that carries little resonance with the rest of the country; except in their opposition to the very idea of two men/ women marrying each other. To pretend that this issue is a progressive reform that the general population will come to terms with in time, may not seem fanciful to the liberalarte; but to the vast majority of the Afro Caribbean and African migrant population - as well as three million Muslims, it surely is.

            Not only are the vast majority of such minorities against this “reform” (including, by the way, those from Eastern Europe), but also a majority of the indigenous population. So, in reality, those 100 rebellious MPs will be harvesting a far greater support within the country than those who believe themselves to be on the right side of history. Where, for instance, will those Muslim MPs be when the time comes to vote on this issue? Will they vote for, abstain, or be pared by a “pro” fellow member hoping the public will not notice.

IF I WERE VOTING next week, I would join those hundred MPs. I would do so because this Bill  trespasses upon the scriptures that our Anglican liberals are supposed to believe in and stand by. Oh yes! I know. No prelate in the Christian church would be forced into conducting a marriage ceremony between Gay couples, under this Bill.

            But, as most Anglican Bishops are of the same liberal persuasion as the politicians seeking to enact this piece of political correctness, then it is only a matter of time, as the liberalarte have already calculated, before gays will have full access to the nation’s Anglican churches.

            I can well imagine pressure being placed upon a vicar to perform the ceremony; I can also imagine those invited into the priesthood being taught to accept gay marriages as part of their mission. The politics of the Anglican church in the near future will be supportive, and who will oppose? For a time the Anglican church will indulge the opposition’s point of view pastorally, Anthony Trollop – like, in debate and argument. But it is an argument that will be won by the liberal wing because of their viral spread throughout the whole of not only the Anglican church, but the upper echelons of the rest of society.

            After reading the above, you may conclude I am anti-gay and homophobic. I am neither. But I oppose this piece of legislation because it is dishonest when it promises that the church will not be forced to entertain gay marriage ceremonies if a particular church refuses. The dishonesty comes in the form of the political calculation that the Anglican Church (as described above) will be dancing to the liberal tune soon enough; and therefore it will become a short matter of time before the whole Anglican Church succumbs. Which is why those 100 Tories need to be supported.

I AM AN ATHEIST. But I have a better instinct for Christian teaching, if not its knowledge, than many a liberal prelate. The Bible, whether Old or New Testament, has little time for what we, in today’s modern parlance call being gay. To pretend, as modern liberal Christians do, that, as Christ preached love, he also meant that between men, is carrying  progressiveness to its imaginative limits.

            What such people are doing is wishfully attributing modern moral liberal concepts to an ancient form of morality that would never have entertained them. Christ was never the Messiah that the Jews were taught to expect. He was a radical rabbi who also believed himself to be the son of God. The fact that he convinced enough people to believe the same thing at the time, should not have had the impact it has had today.

            If gays wish to be united with each other I have no problem with it. But to demand a stand at the altar of an Anglican Church to cement such a relationship, is not only blasphemy, according to the Bible, but also cynical. The same kind of cynicism that is displayed by the heterosexual community when they seek the purely theatrical background of a church wedding to cement their own relationship; and the purely theatrical background of the church to bury them. Leaving the decades between isolated from the church.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS anti-Christian, and no manner of modern Anglican liberal verbiage will change matters. Both the Anglican Church and the House of Commons may suggest otherwise but all it will do is drive more of the Anglican laity into the arms of the church of Rome where there is no liberal fog to undermine and ridicule Christian teaching.

            Homosexuals should be atheists like myself. To pretend that there is a place for them in any Christian church is just that – a mere pretence; one which appeals to their sense of theatricality but  little else. To be honest, homosexuals do not qualify for membership of the Christian Church; for such a church stands, rightly, against homosexuality on Biblical grounds. Grounds which extend to the practices of homosexuality. Practices that have never had a place in the debate about the recognition of homosexuality because such practices are seen, even in certain liberal quarters, as repellent.

            It is very strange that many liberals consider themselves to be secularist, including liberal gays; but they demand marriage in a church. Secularism despises religion and the spiritual world; yet such people are demanding that gays should be allowed to marry in a church, as an “equality” issue.

            The debate will be carried, and the politicians will pat each other on the back for making history; and believing themselves to be in equivalence to the likes of William Wilberforce, who was really on the side of history. But it will only be the beginning. Those who believe the opposition on this issue is only shared by an ageing reactionary populous who will soon be disconnected by time; thus allowing the fruits of 40 years of liberal teaching in our schools to create the perfect liberal citizen, will come unstuck…in fact what has happened over those four decades with our liberal education, reminds one of the film, The Stepford Wives, the plot of which I am sure many a feminist is familiar with.

You cannot conquer prejudice over night, especially in a multicultural society.  In fact had we not created such a society, tomorrow’s vote may have had real significance and may have met with success when introduced into law. But, as I have already hinted, this will not be the end; not even the beginning of the end – more like a new chapter.