A Real Gay Marriage



"Please Dave, go on, let us get married..."

Alex Singleton
asks the question today, 'Will David Cameron let gay people have real marriages?'

I'm not sure whether David Cameron will 'let' 'gay people' have 'real' marriages but I think it is not really something he has the power to confer. A 'real' marriage is a marriage between one man and one woman, after all. A 'real' marriage is hopefully open to the possibility of children. How can you even begin to describe the marriage of two men as a 'real' marriage? I commented that the only 'real' gay marriage is one in which a homosexual marries a heterosexual in the Sacrament of Marriage and, it has to be said, even the Church finds this difficult to permit since there would obviously be complicated matters which could arise...

Singleton should have just left it at 'Will David Cameron let gay people have a civil contract or some kind of partnership?' or not bothered at all, since this facility, of course, already exists. That won't be enough for the LGBT community, I guess, who will be banging on Church doors insisting that Priests marry them, telling the poor Priest to make Almighty God change His mind on what constitutes a marriage because 'its the year 2010 and its high time the Lord got with the program and revised His view'. The Priest will have to reply, "I'll have a word, but I have to say He is changeless and therefore a revision of His position is highly unlikely!" Then the Church will get sued and closed down by the State I guess for worshipping Christ instead of Diversity.

At some point in Singleton's post it starts to become more and more irritating each time he uses the phrase 'gay people'. It is so overdone, over-used and repeated that it begins to sound like homosexuality is a condition akin to disability. It reminds me of the phrase 'disabled people', describing something which is suffered from which should elicit compassion. To do this with sexual orientation is insulting to people with more genuine claims on grounds of discrimination. Homosexuality is a condition, and this is of course exactly what the Church means in Her description of the condition of homosexuality as an 'instrinsic moral disorder'. I wish, however that people would stop categorising people on sexual orientation and remember that people are people.

The semantics of gay rights are now so tiresome. In no way can you possibly look at 'gay rights' in the same light as the black civil rights movement or the rights of the disabled. To do so is a grave insult to those who suffer prejudice on the colour of the skin or because they have a disability. If you turn up to your office in a feather boa and an Abba t-shirt then I suppose people will guess your sexuality and could discriminate against you but the homosexual person has a great deal more choice in how they are perceived than a Nigerian or someone in a wheelchair. Similarly a man who wishes he were a woman will not die if he wears a suit to work instead of his favourite summer dress. He can wear that at home.

There is also a disturbing undercurrent to Singleton's post, as if moral rectitude or even divinity is somehow conferred upon the State from God alone knows where. So, the State says something is good, morally justified or right and that makes it right and good. It is the same with abortion. It is legal therefore it is right, apparently. Cameron, or any other PM apparently has a semi-divine right to make law on such matters.

Is there anything more vulgar and demeaning to us, our dignity, that we place our hope and trust in the State and receive our morality from it!? I can tell you, if you do that, you'll receive scant love or reward back from it. You'll start illegal wars with your next door neighbours because you think they're tyrannical with their families. What is more, I just got another parking ticket! Unlike God, the State is pretty tight-fisted when it comes to dispensing mercy! Don't trust it!

Comments