5 reasons why I can't follow a religion that condemns homosexuality

1. What I know of Jesus.

Society is obsessed with sex, the church is obsessed with sex, human beings are obsessed with sex. Jesus, was not obsessed with sex. In fact, sex wasn’t really a topic Jesus is recorded as talking about. The closest Jesus got to giving us guidance on relationships was in urging people not to divorce. This tells us that Jesus is big on commitment, monogamy, and love, suggesting these are the keys to a healthy relationship rather than gender.

Jesus told us to love others, to give to the needy, to forgive, not to worry, to not judge others, to seek him, to give freely, to recognise that we are

valuable, to acknowledge him, to love God, to lead others to him, and to trust in him. Yet I’ve never known someone to get kicked out of a church for being stingy with their money, for worrying, for having low self-esteem. So why does the church decide that being gay is a greater evil than the sins that actively disobey Jesus’ teachings?

I always like to think about if Jesus were here today, right here amongst us, and living in our culture and our times. Do you think Jesus would be a vicar who exiles members of his church upon hearing they are gay? Do you think Jesus would be a leader of a Christian organisation who keeps a blog in which he constantly speaks out against all gay people? Do you think Jesus would be a Bishop who expresses fear and disgust at the idea of homosexuality? Do you think Jesus would start a campaign rallying people to deny gay people equal rights? Do you think Jesus would marginalise, discriminate, or even hate? Do you think Jesus would judge a person based on their sexuality rather than who they really are inside? Do you think Jesus would perpetuate division in the church over the issue? Do you think Jesus would hold up a sign saying “I hate fags”?

Do you think, that if you could answer yes to any of those questions, that you would even want to follow that Jesus?

The Jesus I know is about goodness- love, acceptance, forgiveness. He isn’t about casting blind, blanket judgement.

2. What I know of God.

God created me. He planned what I would be like, and he put this plan into action when my DNA first existed on this earth. He knew the twists and turns my life would take, and he knew that one day, when I was 18 years old, I would meet someone special. Someone who complemented my personality perfectly, someone whose DNA fitted together with mine in a very beautiful way, someone whose face made my God given body parts flutter and dance, someone I could share a love for him with, someone who brought me happiness, someone who made my soul sit up and wonder what had just hit it. Someone who he had formed before birth, who he had planned a life for, who he loves very, very much.

God is good, a fundamental Christian truth. Would it be good to create two amazingly compatible people, who were bound to fall in love because of the way they were created, because of the life they’d had, to watch their independent lives as they edged closer and closer to the moment their worlds collided, to watch the joy they brought each other, only to say “nah, not allowed”?

Would it make any sense at all for God to create gay people, or allow them to be gay, knowing that they are severely disadvantaged in terms of their eligibility for Christianity? It would be like a mother only allowing her children to be part of the family if they are born blonde. The child can either live their life dying their hair blonde, covering up who they really are, or they can face inevitable exclusion. Church leaders require celibacy from gay people, yet this would be like the mother making the child shave their head- its ok to have the genes of a brunette, but you cannot practise being brunette, you cannot outwardly be brunette, you cannot enjoy your brown hair, and you will surely never be loved because of it. Oh, and don’t forget the blonde sibling, they’ll shun the brunette too, telling them that they must shave their head, that mum won’t want them otherwise. But isn’t that incredibly easy for the blonde to say? How would the blonde child feel if they were the one who would never feel good enough, would never be good enough? 

Does God love us unconditionally? Does he love us regardless of our sexuality? Would he want us living as people we are not inside? Would it be fair of him to create us all, heterosexual and homosexual, knowing that only the former are allowed to enjoy sexual, close relationships? Would God really expect homosexual people to deny, ignore and resist and entire part of who they really are?

The God I know loves us unconditionally, and is fair, and wants the best for us. Can this still be true for a God who does not accept his gay children? If God were a God who rejected the love of a person (towards him) because of their love for a person of the same sex (who he created to be compatible), then is this a God you would want to follow?

3. What I know of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit (among other things): anoints for service, assures, calls and commissions, convicts us of sin, guides us in truth, helps us in our weakness, lives in us, leads us, moulds our character, and teaches us.

So I’m a Christian, the Holy Spirit therefore lives in me and does all of the above tasks. So why do other Christians try and take over the role of the Holy Spirit in my life? Why does my (former) vicar think that his conviction of my sins, his anointing, his truth, his guidance, is greater than that of the Holy Spirit’s in my life?

I have certainly struggled over whether I am right to pursue same-sex relationships. I have looked to Jesus and found he said little about it, but that his emphasis on love does not condemn me. I have looked to God and figured he loves me unconditionally. But to be absolutely sure, I feel like I need to listen to the Holy Spirit, to let him guide me. I let the Holy Spirit convict me, any Christian knows that feeling of conviction, it isn’t quite like guilt, it’s not necessarily a sudden remorse, it isn’t even always a desire to repent. It’s just that feeling deep within that lets you know you’re barking up the wrong tree, that what you’re doing isn’t what God wants you to be doing. But in regards to my sexuality, I am not yet convicted. I am passionate about seeing equality in this area, I am alive with thoughts and arguments (more than I have ever had about any topic), I am (humbly!) proud to be who God made me to be, I feel like my purpose is to be an agent of change on this issue.

Either, the HS isn’t doing his job very well, which is a ludicrous claim as God does everything perfectly, or I am simply defying the HS, which wouldn’t make sense for me to do- why would I change my ways based on what the Spirit was telling me in all areas except one. Or maybe I’m not really a Christian and so the HS isn’t really in me, in which case why am I ever convicted about anything? Or maybe it’s the devil who is enticing me to false security, making me think it’s ok when it isn’t… but if that’s the case then I don’t see how I’m not powerless to that in which case I don’t see how it’s my fault.

Long story short, the Holy Spirit lets me know when I am doing things wrong, and someone else telling me I’m wrong isn’t going to make any difference unless I hear it first from God himself.

4. What I know of the Church.

The church is made up of people, people get things wrong, ergo the church can get things wrong.

Let’s imagine the church is right, and it really is sinful to be in a same-sex relationship. Does that mean the church is right to marginalise gay people? That it is right for them to put homosexuality on top of the hierarchy of sin (that they have created)? There is no denying the church has gone the wrong way about it all, even if they are right.

The hypocrisy of church is a theme that runs through this entire blog, because the church is repeatedly undermining its own authority on the issue. Divorce, sex before marriage, financial sins, pride, unforgiveness etc etc… the congregation arrives each Sunday rife with sins that they don’t intend to repent from. Some feign repentance and some hide the sin altogether, and quite often the church turns a blind eye. They take the mentality of ‘if we can’t see it then it isn’t happening’, and how many people do you think remain active members of the church, leaders even, under this pretence?

Then someone like me comes along, I don’t start serving until I know the church would be comfortable with it, I don’t hide my ‘sin’ or my intention to ‘sin’, I don’t make excuses. I tell them outright that I am in a same-sex relationship. And it’s game over, my only lifeline is to repent from something that I do not believe is a sin. I am penalised for being honest, I am outside the church while all those with covert affairs, numerous marriages, ill-gotten gains, a disinterest in the needy, hatred in their hearts, are on the inside. None of us are without sin, yet my ‘sin’ is not allowed to co-exist alongside the sin of other church goers.

If the church treated me in the same way that it treats straight people, then I might actually listen to what it has to say. All I can see is one set of rules for one group, and another for us.

Another issue I take with the church, is it’s equation of homosexuality with sex. The bible seems to say a lot more about sexual immorality in general than homosexuality and for that reason, I personally believe abstaining until marriage/civil partnership is the best way. That means that, unlike a lot of Christians (a LOT more than the church is willing to recognise) I am not being sexually immoral, yet I am treated as if I am. When I was kicked out of my church they said to me “we’re kicking out the straight couple who are having premarital sex too”, as if that assures me of their equality. But I just felt frustrated, that I am trying to be as holy and godly as possible, considering the fact my sexual attraction to the same-sex will never be seen as holy or godly, and yet I am placed in the ‘sexual sin bin’.

Being gay only leads to sexual sin because it is impossible for us to confine sex for marriage- because the church withholds marriage from us! If we could get married, then we could keep sex sacred (from the viewpoint of the church) and be treated in the same way as our heterosexual brothers and sisters, without having a ‘sexual sin stamp’ placed on our forehead.

The only way homosexual people can meet the standards of the church is to never have sex, whether in a civil partnership or not. This is unfair, shows no compassion, is very easy for a married heterosexual with a life of abundant sex to say, and doesn’t allow a gay person to express who they truly are. Not to mention we have to somehow never lust, somehow quench any sexual attraction that naturally comes with love, somehow cease to be sexual beings altogether. It is completely repressive, and makes me imagine the church as some sort of slave driver, who enjoys a lavish lifestyle while laughing at the slaves who will never get a taste of it.

So the church needs to stop criminalising homosexuality, to stop making it into a bigger sin than any other, to stop assuming being homosexuality invalidates you as a serving member of the church, to stop placing unrealistic expectations on gay people, to stop repressing them, marginalising them and treating them differently. And to stop assuming that being in love with someone of the same sex means that we are all automatically sinners.

5. What I know of the bible

This is the crux of the matter. Those few words printed in that book are the beginning of all of this. If just a few words in the bible had been omitted, or translated differently then (technically) there would be no argument whatsoever to assume homosexuality is wrong, as a Christian.

Firstly, we are going to have to assume the bible is infallible. That means there is no chance it has been interpreted wrongly, there is no way that they views express the writers’ rather than God’s, that every word written has been preserved with its original meaning intact.

I’ll let us assume that, because it’s a widely held view by Christians that the bible is infallible. But then we’ve got more issues, the issue of context mainly. Can a Christian categorically, definitely, doubtlessly argue that the few verses which mention homosexuality are a) relevant to our culture, b) semantically interpreted in a way that reflects the context of the time it was written, and c) are read with regard to the immediate context of the surrounding verses.

I won’t go into the verses here, because I have before and because there are many websites explaining it better than I can.

But what I know of the bible, is that it has a whole lot more about a whole many more issues. Homosexuality is a tiny issue embedded between teachings about hundreds of things. It is a secondary issue, with doctrinal teaching requiring our main attention. Where it is briefly mentioned, there is ambiguity around translation, context, intent, applicability etc.

I follow as much of the bible as I can, and the bits I don’t manage I repent of. But I don’t see how, or why, I should follow a few questionable verses which defy my very nature and innate being. I go back to my earlier analogy- imagine there was a verse that said “brown hair is unnatural and detestable,” firstly, you would think it unfair that you were penalised for the way you were made, you’d be frustrated that you had to spend your life covering up or denying the way you were made. You would find it almost impossible to imagine how God could say such a thing, or how other Christians could so easily pass judgement on you.

Now imagine, that the verses saying your hair is a sinful colour, might not be so true. Imagine it was translated wrongly, it might not mean ‘hair’ as such but might actually mean ‘wig’ and it’s been saying all along that brown wigs are sinful. But if it did mean hair, then it turns out, that at the time brown hair had entirely different connotations, meaning it meant a lot more back then than simply hair colour, that brown hair was used in an evil way which it isn’t used anymore. Imagine there was a small chance the verse was only there because the writer didn’t like brown- haired people.

All the blonde people don’t bother to look into whether the verse meant wig, or whether the verses apply in the current context. They don’t need to- they are blonde, if the bible says being brunette is sinful then it is. They’ll point out to all the brunettes who haven’t shaved their heads, or dyed their hair, that they don’t belong, that they can’t be members of the church, that they don’t deserve the same rights as blonde people. All the while, the brunettes will easily say that the verses are out of context, translated wrongly, that condemnation based on the way they are born does not tie in with the overall message of the bible, that even if it is completely wrong then that doesn’t give the church the right to treat them badly.

___________

And so, those are five reasons that the church's anti-gay stance infuriates me. If homosexuality is sinful after all then there is still no justification for the way gay people are treated by the church and by other Christians. The God I know puts love over condemnation, grace over law, and understanding over judgement. And that is the God I choose to follow.

the great hypocrisy

Over the past week, since my excommunication from my church, I've been trying to gather my thoughts and feelings about it. I'm still a bit speechless, stunned, and numb but also incredibly sad and a little bit angry.

But I think somewhere in the big mess of emotion I am lost in, I have located where that niggling feeling is dwelling.

It's the fact that our country has an issue of inequality on their hands. You would expect that the church would be leading the way in any issue of inequality, that it would be the Christians who push for justice and equality, that we would be able to rely on churches, at least, to be accepting and loving among our selfish society. It's all we bang on about in sermons, when we tell people about Jesus, when we go about our outreach work; we tell everyone about the love, acceptance and fellowship that Christianity offers.

But in reality, the Church is perceived by society as a barrier to LGB equality. By producing petitions against same-sex marriage, by kicking people out of church, by condemning all LGB people, Christians are not practicing these values they teach. Instead, the acceptance and love is being promoted by secular groups and fellowship is hard to find for LGB Christians.

Thanks to the media, and a few influential religious bigots, our country has become a society of 'us' and 'them', there is an increasingly bipolar view of the church being collectively against homosexuality and the rest of society being for. It doesn't take a genius to see who comes out looking bad.

'Society' has no reason to accept LGB people, yet it does anyway. Christians have many reasons to accept LGB people, yet it doesn't.

So that is what bothers me the most, it's the fact that society is one step ahead of the church, it's standing there encouraging the church to move forwards, like a mother encouraging her child to take its first step. All the while the church is standing there, like a stubborn child with its arms crossed, refusing to move, thus frustrating everyone and making itself look like a defiant so and so.

The church needs to stop preaching about things it doesn't practice. Which sounds harsh, but I spent 2 months at a church, listening to endless sermons about loving others, celebrating the people God made us to be, being encouraged and built up, and affirmed in my identity as a Christian, only for every word they preached to become empty words the moment the church failed to put them into practice.

Can we please end this massive hypocrisy in churches? Can the church please stop pretending it is something it isn't? Can we turn churches from places that exile you to places that unconditionally accept you?

And to those of us who want to be Christians who practice what we preach, who love and accept in the same unconditional way that Jesus did, it's time for us to take a stand, to let the rest of the country know that Christians do lobby for equality, and that there is a place for everybody in God's family.


Disclaimer: in my polarisation of views I have obviously omitted mention of the positions of other religions. This is because it's the church that seems to have drawn all this attention to itself, and intervened with politics on the premise that we are a 'christian country'. So I'm not saying Christians are responsible for all opposition against equality for gay people (or that all Christians are responsible!), but just that their voice of opposition is coming across worryingly loudly.

they just p*ssed on their own parade

Today I went to church.
Today I was told I am no longer welcome due to the fact I do not see a problem with same-sex marriage.

I was welcomed at this church, I joined a small group, I was offered opportunities to serve.
Then I told them my views.
Then my eligibility for membership was invalidated, my beliefs were undermined and my integrity questioned.

Last time I checked, there wasn't a vetting system for who is allowed to be a part of the Christian family.

Last time I checked, people weren't kicked out of church for sinning. However, yes, I am unrepentant of intending to have a same-sex relationship, but I'm pretty sure the woman bishops are unrepentant of being bishops. God convicts me of things I do wrong, I could list a thousand sins I've committed this week, I know they are wrong even when they seem right, because I have a relationship with God and he shows me the things I need to turn against.

I'm a strong Christian, I will find a new church which is more accepting... but what about the people on the fringes of church? This is the impression we are sending out to everyone that doesn't fit in our box, or doesn't live up to this invented Christian standard- we are telling them that they aren't welcome, that they are confined to the outskirts of our community. And then we complain, as Christians, about how corrupt and promiscuous the gay culture is... and we forget the role we played in pushing them to it.

The vicar at this church vindicated himself by allocating blame on church structure and politics- "it's because we're a Church of England church" he said. But it's not, I attended a church in Sheffield where the vicar supported me, and all other same-sex couples, and he was Church of England. Yes, there is contention in the CofE stance on the issue but it does not have to be used as a veil for individual homophobia.

We are sending out a sad, sad message to the not-yet-converted of the world, and not only is this message sad but it's contradictory and conflicted. What I know of God, and what I am taught of about him (by Christians, vicars, church leaders, Jesus himself) is his grace, his acceptance and his love for us. I am taught to love others, to love God, to serve him and to help the poor and needy. I am taught of joy and forgiveness, of heaven and hope. Christians have this wonderful parade of God's amazing characteristics, and then they go and piss all over it with their condemnation and judgement.

Listening, language and leadership

(Sorry for yet another tragically long post, I'll bold the important parts for quick reading)

If fundamentalist Christians and members of the gay rights lobby share one thing in common, it's their claim on the word 'marginalised'. Christians claim to be marginalised in today's society, for example when they are not allowed to wear crosses at their workplace. Gay people claim to be marginalised when they are exempt from marriage, or when they are discriminated against.

I have claimed, in the past, to have felt 'marginalised' within the church as a non-straight Christian. Yet the church has often claimed it doesn't marginalise people- churches are surely inclusive, and surely Jesus didn't shy away from being around sinners and the despised (bla bla bla). Yes, this is true in my experience. I have been out in public and been called a 'dyke' by a random stranger yet I have never walked into a church and been called names by the people in the pews. I have never, I can categorically say, experienced any sort of direct, overt, face to face discrimination over my less than clear sexual orientation within the walls of a church.

But... yup there's a but coming.

But something I have learnt, is that marginalisation does not have a face that can be seen in the same way discrimination or hate crimes do. No, to experience life at the margins of society, or an institution or a family or any sort of group, is to experience something subtle, something insidious. But not something malicious. That's the difference between discrimination and marginalisation- the latter just happens, without us even realising we are contributing to it.

So I am going to share with you what my experience of being marginalised has been over the years because if we can identify the subtle ways it occurs, then we can work harder to stop it happening.

There are 3 areas within which the church, both as individual institutions and as the collective, perpetuate marginalisation; listening, language and leadership.

1. Listening
One of the first steps the church I used to belong to took when I 'came out' was to summon me to a meeting with the pastoral leadership team. I was reduced to tears as I sat and was told that my relationship was 'a confused friendship that had gone too far' and that me and my partner had to 'never see each other again'.

If they had listened to me, they would have known that I KNEW I wasn't simply confused- trust me, the fallout wasn't worth it simply for a bit of confusion. They would have known that asking me to depart from my lesbian lover was only going to cause me to spiral into a deep and profound depression. And when I get depressed, it gets messy.

They did not listen to the parts that mattered- my feelings, my emotions, my concerns for my mental health. All they heard was 'homosexual activity' and that was as far as they were willing to listen before dishing out their poor advice.

What happened next, was I was sent to a meeting with a member of the church who was gay. I told them that it wasn't going to help if she was celibate. I wasn't looking for an argument over whether it was right or not, I was looking for support. I met with this girl. I said "have you ever been in love?" she said "no". I felt the point of my issue was being side stepped. I was trying to tell them that I was in love, that I was struggling to reconcile that with my faith, that I was TERRIFIED of the future and of what all of this meant for me (I was only 19, for pity's sake). I needed to talk to someone who had been through that terror, someone who could understand the hurt and sadness I was feeling and who could help me find my way through that. If they had listened, they would have known a meeting like that would only make me more confused, and more stubborn.

What happened next? I was sent to a Christian counsellor, part funded by my church. On the face of it, this was supportive and inclusive. Underneath the insidious marginalisation was occurring. Week upon week I met with this woman who didn't listen to a word I said. She would spend the hour praying for my lost soul, that I would stop being gay. Once, I brought her a bit of writing I had done talking about things I felt in words I could not verbalise. She said she would read it. The next week she hadn't read it. For the next 3 sessions I asked her if she had read it yet and she promised she would read it by the next session. She never did read what I wrote. She never listened enough to hear what I felt. It was all about her own agenda.

I cannot express to you enough, how important it is to LISTEN. I was a naive 19 year old, I was confused and I was hurting. When I feel like no-one is listening to my feelings, I automatically do things that make them listen. In the past this has been self-destructive. That time, I ended up rebelling. The year following all of these things, I went crazy, I did whatever I wanted, I did many of the things I always promised myself I would never do. I have to take responsibility for my actions, but I also wonder if there could have been a straighter path back to happiness if people in my church had focused on the issues at hand, if they had listened rather than judged, if rather than sidelining me they had embraced me and held onto me. All these ways they reacted, because they weren't really listening, pushed me away further and further until I was completely lost and on the outside.

(By the way, they subtly sidelined me until I told them I was leaving at which point they waved me goodbye on my merry way and I found a new church where the vicar LISTENED and supported me in the way I needed rather than the way he saw as correct).

2. Language
Last weekend I was at a Christian event. I went with my 'partner' and we were overtly gay. We publicly cuddled and pecked lips and walked around arm in arm. No-one said a word to us. No-one shouted nasty things, gave us dirty looks (that we saw anyway!) or acted in any threatening way. For almost the entire weekend, I felt included, and I felt we were legitimately there as a couple alongside the straight couples.

Except, there was subtle marginalisation. Three particular moments made my radar alarm. Firstly, in the 'marketplace' there was a stand for the organisation 'Care for the Family'. There was no overt banner ousting homosexuals, but they had a book stand. Lots of books, magazines, images and projections of the traditional family, images of a 2.4 nuclear family, with a mother and father. Another book I flicked through from another stand had a chapter devoted to explaining why being gay is wrong. A scour of the makeshift bookshop in a little marquee produced more books all geared towards a traditional family.  Me and my partner have been having a bit of light hearted banter recently about our 'family', 'deciding' on our kids names, picturing our wedding, chatting about our child rearing approaches. If we end up together, we intend to be a very Christian family, we intend to raise church going children, to do missions work, to serve in our church. But I did not see one single book, not even one little indication anywhere, of any sort of support for us. Of any image or line in a book that includes us as a legitimate family. Don't get me wrong, these books do exist (http://www.livingitout.com/) but their presence is strangely absent from large scale Christian events.

Secondly, I bought a Christian magazine from a stand, mainly out of interest of what constitutes content for a Christian woman demographic. A few pages in, an advert for the Coalition for Marriage petition. That bloody thing gets EVERYWHERE!

Thirdly, one of the hosts was talking about God and stuff (funny that) and he talked a bit about family and marriage, I can't remember the exact wording but they were passing comments, mainly used as examples, and were side points to what he was actually talking about. The issue I had, maybe a bit pedantic, but he referred only to 'husbands' and 'wives' and spoke as though the only relationship he had ever heard of was a marriage between a man and a woman. I'm not saying I expect him to be all PC and to add on 'and people in same- sex relationships' or to talk about it as tho it's all part and parcel. But, what got me was the complete nonchalance, the absolute lack of realisation that what he was saying was only applicable to a minority (assuming his language also marginalised single people, widows, or any other set up in which the people in it can't relate to his words). In general, we need to be careful not to exclude people in our choice of words.

So, my point being, we were never overtly pushed to the sidelines, but there was an underlying assumption that cropped up time and time again over the weekend, that we were at a Christian event and ergo, we were straight and conventional in our relationships. The entire language used in the event and the one-sided representation of family life made it seem as though they were pretending people like us didn't exist, and certainly weren't there among them. Next time you are listening to a sermon, listening to the congregation chat, listening to the Christian radio, watching Christian TV, reading a magazine, at a Christian event, doing anything where Christians hold the dominant voice, I dare you, to listen to the language they are using, and you'll see this assumption hidden within Christian discourse. And when you do, think of how it sounds to your friends who don't fit the box.

3. Leadership
All of this falls under the remit of leadership. Their influence has run beside every experience I've had of marginalisation. We are held back from moving forward on the issue of same-sex marriage largely because of the voice of the leadership of the collective church. I'm not asking for a U-turn on the issue, but I am asking that leaders set an example of listening to the marginalised, of considering us rather than pretending we don't exist, of crushing these assumptions that we all fit in a perfect little conventional Christian box.
I read in the papers about what some Bishop has said most recently about same-sex marriage, I watch them all from afar debating the importance of protecting the definition of marriage, I see their signatures on petitions against same-sex marriage. Leaders in the church are outspoken on the issue. But are they listening as much as they are talking?
This subtle sidelining of gay Christians won't end until leaders stop perpetuating it.


Somewhere along the way it's become unacceptable to actively discriminate against gay people, or to treat them badly, but it's still OK to push them out and to allow them to live on the margins of church life, stopping them from being fully included through exclusive language and an inability to listen and support them.


So, don't assume that just because you aren't standing at the church gate with a sign saying 'God Hates Fags' that you aren't pushing gay people away from your church, whether you are a fellow member or a leader. On one hand, being exclusive doesn't mean physically turning gay people away at they church door, on the other hand, being inclusive doesn't mean standing with a clipboard rallying support for gay marriage and herding all the homosexuals through your church door. I'd argue that all it takes to stop pushing homosexual Christians out of the church is to listen a little more to their needs, and to respond in a language they can understand.

Ignorant Daily Mail Readers

A summary of this rather long post:

* Disclaimer for why I am spacial-ly close enough to the Daily Mail to allude to an article in it

* Description of its ridiculous views

* Mention of its latest article on same-sex marriage

* Evidence of these ridiculous views in the reader comments section on said article

* Brief explosion of anger at how ignorant DM readers are

I have a confession to make. It's really rather embarrassing but anything is justified in the name of research, right? My confession is, that I am a Daily Mail reader. I know, I know, you may now lose some of your respect for me, and label me as a racist, right-wing, ignorant fool but before you do, let me try and explain.
I read the DM because it is often light hearted and fun and there's nothing better to brighten up your morning than a story about a dog who can sing the alphabet, 3 million pictures of people drowning in the rain, and a list of the next 1,000 things to cause cancer which becomes so laughable that it's all a good laugh. It also saves me a fortune in buying trashy celeb magazines, as my teenage-like interest in which celeb has got fat this month is quenched by the latest DM offering.

Every article in the DM is 'approved' or 'disapproved' by a barometer style comments system. So people who post comments affirming the generic DM reader view is 'green arrowed' meaning everyone agrees, and a comment that defies DM reader ideology is 'red arrowed' so a quick glance at the best rated and worst rated comments will give you a clear idea of which way is up.

In case you are not so well acquainted with the Daily Mail, I will give you a brief outline. The general (right-wingness of it) view is that anything that involves the state 'discriminating' against us British people is despicable. Cue many articles lavishing hatred upon immigrants (who are stealing all our jobs and primary school places), social workers/doctors/judges/policemen (who are stealing our freedom by imposing laws upon us), and people on benefits (who are stealing all our hard-earned money).

Anything that affirms Britain as a nation is revered, cue endless stories about the Royal Family, the sacredness of the Olympics and the Jubilee, and many inane stories about insignificant British people doing unremarkable things.

And then there are the things which the readers can't quite decide on, which leads to quite some contradiction (even more contradictory than when they ran endless stories about the devil child rioters whilst simultaneously blaming the entire thing on the government).

Christianity is one of these contradictions, this one all depends on who they are pitted against. DM readers are all for our 'Christian country' when it is being compromised by another minority group or state authority but as soon as a Christian is reported as compromising individual rights, they are villianised and quickly disowned.

David Cameron is another contradiction. When he does something right, it's all 'hail the conservatives' but when he does something controversial it's all 'why is this man in charge of our precious party?!'

Anyway... the point of that long winded introduction is to highlight today's Daily Mail daily offering on the same-sex marriage debate.

"Most homosexuals indifferent to David Cameron's drive for gay marriage" proclaims the headline. DM, always the vehicle of ignorance.
Firstly, this survey was commissioned by "Catholic Voices" a group CLEARLY with an agenda, but this bias is overlooked.
Secondly, only 541 people were asked, who self-reported their sexuality. No controls on who was really filling in this questionnaire, not to mention 541 people could capture a very specific demographic.
Thirdly, this whole issue has become incredibly complex, with political, religious and homophobic agendas all over the place. People are not understanding the issue at hand. I don't say that condescendingly, I have been following this debate closely yet am constantly confused about what the debate actually is. But the ignorance is self evident. Here is an example:

KEY PROPOSALS FOR SAME SEX MARRIAGE:
"no changes are proposed to religious marriages.  This will continue to only be legally possible between a man and a woman;" (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/equalities/lgbt/)


What is this guy smoking?! Why is he banging on about same-sex marriage meaning having to get married in a church? THE PROPOSALS WILL NOT MEAN GAY COUPLES CAN GET MARRIED IN A CHURCH, IN FACT THEY ARE STILL EXPLICITLY BANNED FROM DOING SO. It makes me so, so mad that this ignorant man is supporting this equally ignorant DM article. 10 equally ignorant people 'green-arrowed' this comment. 


So, this is why I hate the DM, it perpetuates ignorance on so many levels about so many things. The readers hate things for the sake of hating them, and can't even stick to their convictions when a shinier dartboard for their hate filled arrows is placed in their way.


But... I have a morbid fascination with reading it (a bit like how you can't not look at a car crash), because the ignorance is just so astounding it isn't even real.


And just one more disclaimer: I'm not affiliating myself with any particular political view in this post, don't assume I am some Labour lover just cause I find DM readers overzealous with their right wing views.

Continuing the quest

So I have been quietly (for the most part) following the recent furore over same-sex marriage.

• Of particular amusement has been the back and forth between @drpetersaunders and a bunch of mainly non-christians who have been offended by his "homosceptism" (his pathetic attempt at vocabulary which translates as homophobic to the rest of us)
• Of particular excitement has been President Obama's speech in which he claims support for same- sex marriage
• Of particular worry is that the Coalition for Marriage petition has over half a million signatures
• Of particular interest has been Out and Around a website that follows two lesbians as they trot around the globe investigating the LGBT community all across the world

I have been trying so hard not to get too defensive over this whole debate. No, honestly, even at church they have a copy of the C4M petition on the wall, and although I wanted to a) get out of there as fast as possible, or b) hunt down whoever put it there and kick some ass, I instead calmly accepted it, and decided I won't get on the defensive but will wait and find out how seriously they take that rubbish (to be fair, I am new to this church and a poster like that doesn't exactly make me feel welcome!). 

So I've been attempting to stay calm, but some things really rile me. Or rather, some people's ignorance. I'd like to demonstrate some of the opinions other Christians have towards gay people, and gay Christians.

These are from a discussion about Obama's speech on the UCB radio's Facebook page (warning: it's more painful than reading the Daily Mail readers' comments):

"I wouldn't vote for them. It shows immorality"

"God created Adam and eve not Adam and Steve! I would not be voting for him if I had the chance, we must remain faithful to scripture"

"Wrong wrong wrong ! totally wrong! gays should not be aloud!"

"He's sold his soul"

"Once every man marries every man and every woman marries every woman, who is going to give birth to the babies they have to adopt? Soon human beings will go on extinct. God does not make mistake and will never make mistake to create a man in woman's body likewise a woman in a man's body. Its the devil that plays with people's mind and he is ready to take as many people to hell as he could. No one is judging but remember this is the end time - "Take heed lest ye fall"."

"if the whole world should go 'gay',in d nxt 2 centuries 4rm nw mankind will cease 2 exist!"

Of course, I have picked out only the ridiculous comments, and my favourite comment by far was from a 17 year old gay Christian who said "do you people hear yourselves?!" and I thought that sums it up really, if they could hear themselves through the ears of the people they are condemning then they might realise the poison in their words. As a side note, I love UCB a lot, just not some of the comments their listeners make, not just on this issue.

At risk of this post being too long, like most are, I shall leave you with these 2 things.

Firstly, you might enjoy (or not) Andrea Minichiello William's latest offering here

Secondly, so you don't become disillusioned about Christianity, here's some truth:

Romans 8:1-4 "If you belong to Christ Jesus, you won’t be punished. ² The Holy Spirit will give you life that comes from Christ Jesus and will set you free from sin and death. ³ The Law of Moses cannot do this, because our selfish desires make the Law weak. But God set you free when he sent his own Son to be like us sinners and to be a sacrifice for our sin. God used Christ’s body to condemn sin. ⁴ He did this, so that we would do what the Law commands by obeying the Spirit instead of our own desires."

http://www.outandaround.com/gays-versus-religion-my-journey/2012/05

tongue in cheek but w/e

Peter Saunders vs The World

Disclaimer: Now, don’t get me wrong, I never intended for this blog to pick on certain people and to deride them personally, but certain people (Andrea Minichiello Williams on my previous post, Peter Saunders on this one) have put themselves out there as voices of reason in the same-sex marriage debate. I’m not trying to attack these people personally, for all I know they could be nice people, but I will publicly pick on their publicly shared opinions. So just to get it out there, these posts are taking issue with the things these people have said, not the people themselves.

Today’s topic: Peter Saunders. A chief executive of Christian Medical Fellowship, an organisation that I have heard good things of in the past. 

Peter writes on his blog many posts about sexuality (http://pjsaunders.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Sexuality) and same sex marriage (http://pjsaunders.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/same-sex%20marriage). Without even clicking the links, you could take a good guess (and be right) that Peter is not a fan of surrendering the sacred ‘marriage’ noun to the homosexual riff raff. I will however, give Peter some credit, in that his blog posts are a lot fairer than others I have read, and he is polite to people who respond with offensive comments, and he seems to be coming from a more genuine conviction in relaying what he feels is God’s agenda rather than coming from a place of homophobia. He seems a good guy, but I just happen to disagree with some of his beliefs.

In case you are wondering if Peter has ever stood in the shoes of someone who: struggles with homosexual feelings, who has had their heart broken by losing their first love because they are of the same gender, of someone who has been kicked out of their church where they thought they were family for being gay, who has been told to remain celibate forever due to their unwanted sexual attractions, who has married someone they don’t really love just to marry someone of the ‘right’ gender, who has faced all the indignity and discriminations of being gay etc etc then your wonderings will be quenched with this quote from Peter:

“I lost my virginity aged 24 on my wedding night almost thirty years ago (to my first wife!) and have only had one sexual partner since (ie. my first wife to whom I am still married).” (http://pjsaunders.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/my-shocking-sex-confession.html)

So it is important, I feel, that we all bear in mind that Peter’s arguments do not lack intellect, but perhaps lack some empathy and understanding.

I present to you today, Peter’s “top ten reasons not to legalise same sex marriage” plus a bit of back and forth from other readers, and then ding ding ding, my opinion. (http://pjsaunders.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/ten-reasons-not-to-legalise-same-sex.html)

(the white boxes do not mean anything special, just appeared when I copied and pasted)


1. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman 

Peter: Throughout history in virtually all cultures and faiths throughout the world, marriage has been held to be the union of one man and one woman. Marriage existed thousands of years before our nation began and has been recognised in our laws as the ‘voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life’ (Hyde v Hyde 1866). The UN Declaration of Human Rights (article 16) recognises that the family, headed by a man and a woman, ‘is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State’. It is not up to governments to redefine marriage – but simply to recognise it for what it is, and to promote and protect it as a unique institution. 

Jeremy: Civil marriage is between a man and a woman and explicitly excludes any religious references. It is a legal partnership recognised by the state and has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It is not up to religions to define what they believe marriage to be and then impose this understanding on everyone else in society. That is blatant bigotry, discrimination and homophobia.

P: You are right that marriage is a legal partnership - in fact a legal contract - recognized by the state. I am not in any way denying that. But the state defines marriage as ‘the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life’. The UN Declaration of Human Rights also recognizes that it is ‘one man, one woman’. This is not primarily a religious issue – many religious people support the legalization of same sex marriage and many people of no faith do not. Are you suggesting that these people of no faith are also guilty of ‘blatant bigotry, discrimination and homophobia’ simply because they do not share your view? Are our legislators also guilty of these three things?

Richard: Yes, the whole world IS guilty of discrimination against Gay and Lesbian people, in some countries this is still enshrined in quite draconian laws. The statements about the definition of marriage are examples that linger from a past that we really should be putting behind us. Just because something IS, does not mean we can't change it. The reformation is a shining example, surely.

Ding ding ding, end of round 1. I agree with Peter that this particular argument is not necessarily a religious issue, but I think Richard wins this round. These are old definitions, and quite possibly formed in part because of historical focus on religion. Just because these definitions were formed, it doesn’t mean they are enduring and doesn’t even mean that they were originally correct. 

The government can recognise marriage ‘for what it is’ but the fact is, is that there are now homosexual relationships that also deserve recognition. It is how it is, and currently it is a world with homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

I think I’d also say, that Peter thinks marriage needs to be ‘protected as a unique institution’. Extending the definition to same-sex couples does not make it any less unique. What is distinct about marriage is that it recognises two people’s love for each other, and allows them to become part of the same family and to be joined in a unique way for the rest of their lives, a point on which I should think we agree. Marriage between same-sex couples follows the same concept, marriage as an institution is not changed. What does, however, threaten marriage as an institution is divorce, as this goes against the main concepts of marriage yet divorce is now legal (and we should note has not ruined marriage for the rest of the heterosexuals). 

So I would agree with Peter if marriage was unique solely for the fact it is between a man and a woman but the fact is, that’s not the point of marriage, it is not simply to join two people of the opposite sex together for life, it is instead to join together a man and a woman who love each other, something that won’t be corrupted by extension to same sex couples.

2.Same sex couples already have civil partnerships

Peter: All the legal rights of marriage are already available to same sex couples through civil partnerships so there is no need to redefine marriage to include them. The President of the Family Division has even described civil partnerships as conferring ‘the benefits of marriage in all but name’. Such a move would also inevitably lead to calls to open civil partnerships to opposite sex couples on the basis of ‘equality’. But marriage and civil partnerships have been designed for two very different types of relationship and should be kept distinct. It is not and should not be ‘one size fits all’.

Jeremy: Civil partnerships are not equal to marriage in law and continue discrimination purely on the grounds of sexuality. Providing legal equality for same sex couples basically has nothing to do with religion and would be simple to implement.

P: Marriage and civil partnerships are covered by different acts of parliament indeed but can you tell me (and other readers) what legal rights married couples have that those in a civil partnership do not? Could you also explain by what legislative manoevre same sex marriage could be easily legalized? Have you read my post ‘Legalising same sex marriage is a can of worms’? You should.

Richard: Once again - just because legislation is difficult to change does not mean it should not be changed. If something is wrong and discriminatory then it should be put right. I don't believe it would be nearly as expensive as you claim - I think this is a false argument. And, as you say, if gay couples have the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples - what could possibly be the objection? And, by the way, marriage is only marriage if it is ratified by the state - even a church wedding needs to the services of a registrar - who happens to be a priest, but the role is different. However, to be legal, no marriage needs to be ratified by a minister at all.

Ding ding ding, end of round 2. Two things: 1, is it right that there are these two distinct institutions? Confining the argument to Christians for a moment, if we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, all with one Lord over us, all of equal importance to God, then why is there a separation between us that isn’t actually required? Why should a difference be drawn between one christian couple and another, based solely on a body part?

2, if it’s all the same thing anyway then why shouldn’t it use the same name. 

It seems a bit contradictory to me that Peter is saying that CP’s are basically the same as marriages, but that they should remain distinct. Either they are the same or they aren’t.

3.Redefining marriage without consultation is undemocratic 

Peter: None of the political leaders who are supporting the legalisation of same sex marriage announced it as a priority in their election manifestos. There is already a huge amount of opposition to the move and pressing ahead with legalisation will lead to considerable dissension and division. Legalising same sex marriage to appease a small minority is wrong and it should not be foisted on the British people without proper consultation about whether rather than how it should be done.

Jeremy: Consultation is proposed and anyone is welcome to contribute.

P: Yes but the Home Secretary has made it very clear that the consultation is not about whether same sex marriage should be legalized but how it should be legalized. That is highly undemocratic. 

Richard: Here's a challange. If there were a consultation and the majority chose to allow same sex marriage, would you then come quietly. I think not - the church would go on squealing about the tirany of the majority and anti religious bias in society. Remember, its only a tiny minority of people that actually attend church.

 Ding ding ding, end of round 3. Richard has a point- would Christians stand for legislation that excluded them from something even though they are the minority? Probably not, they would fight for inclusion based on equal rights.

Peter is concerned about division, yet petitions like the Coalition for Marriage which he supports are inciting even more division. 

Also, there is an option on the consultation to ‘disagree’ with the proposed changes… so surely that is democratic?

4.Equality does not mean uniformity

Peter: In a free democratic society we accept that many human activities are not open to everybody. Not everyone is allowed to drink alcohol, drive a car, buy property, cast a vote, own a firearm, attend university, visit Buckingham Palace or participate in a 100m women’s Olympic event. This does not mean that those who are not eligible for these activities are in any way denigrated or demeaned, but just that there are eligibility criteria. Same sex couples do not fulfil the eligibility criteria for marriage, which should be reserved for the voluntary union of one man and one woman for life.

Jeremy: You seem to have a twisted concept of equality if you think it means uniformity.

P: No I am arguing exactly the opposite. Equality under the law does not necessarily mean uniformity. 

Richard: Your original list of things some people could not do was a list of straw men. E.G: "not everyone can vote" - true convicted criminals and minors (both for obvious reasons). I don't think we should be likening sexual orientation to either criminality or lack of respnsibility and experience - do you?

Ding ding ding, end of round 4. A point I have made many times before: surely it is more important that the eligibility criteria for marriage are ‘being in love’ ‘being a christian’ (for christian marriage) ‘willing to commit for life’ however these are not always met by people who are still allowed to use the title ‘married’. Surely two people marrying so one can get a green card should not be ‘eligible’ for marriage and of course lawfully they aren’t, yet if they get away with it then they are, by definition, married.

Also a similar point to point 3, what if it were Christians who were not eligible for certain things. Christians ousted from voting, from driving, from attending university, they wouldn’t stand for it. The reasons some people aren’t allowed to do some things are because of good, sensible reasons, however there are not good, sensible reasons (despite this article’s aims) to oust homosexuals from marriage, just as there wouldn’t be to oust Christians from certain things. 

I actually do not, quite simply, understand this point at all…

5.Protecting traditional marriage safeguards children and society 

Peter: Stable marriages and families headed by a mother and a father are the bedrock of society and the state has a duty to protect the uniqueness of these key institutions. Though death and divorce may prevent it, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. Whilst single parents or same sex couples may do a good job in raising children, social policy has to be concerned with what is normally the case, and children have a right if at all possible to have a married mother and a father involved in their upbringing. In general the evidence shows that marriage provides a stability for adults and children which is hard to beat in terms of outcomes. There is considerable evidence to show that marriage leads to better family relationships, less economic dependence, better physical health and longevity, improved mental health and emotional well-being and reduced crime and domestic violence. By contrast sexual freedom and relationship breakdown cost Britain £100 billion annually and other models of the family have not been shown to have the same stability as traditional marriage. Same sex marriage, in comparison with marriage, is an unproven and experimental social model.

Jeremy: Children being brought up by same sex couples are proven by all the research available to benefit equally to those children brought up by opposite sex couples. Providing marriage for same sex couples has no effect on marriage for opposite sex couples.

P: You are arguing here largely from silence as there is very little hard evidence available on the children of same sex marriages because same sex marriage is a very recent social experiment. Changing the law to allow same sex marriage would alter the definition of marriage for opposite sex couples because the two types of partnership cannot be easily accommodated under one legal umbrella. 

Richard: Then, there is no evidence either way - your point still falls

Ding ding ding, end of round 5. Firstly, Peter has torn down his own point here- in many, many cases, ‘traditional marriage’ is not reality. Even when there is a couple who are ‘traditionally married’ that is not to say there isn’t abuse happening, or that it isn’t a bad environment for a child anyway. It is entirely unrealistic to expect that families will be traditional, or that if they are that it is a positive thing. There is nothing to say that a gay couple can’t provide a more stable environment for their children than the heterosexual couple next door. 

And of course same-sex marriage is unproven, because it doesn’t bloody exist!! Stupidest comment ever. That’s like saying ‘the health benefits of a booboo fruit are not proven to be as good as those of a blueberry’. If the booboo fruit were allowed to exist however, then there is nothing to say that it won’t demonstrate equally good health benefits. 

All in all, this argument falls at the first hurdle as it is based on the premise that traditional marriage safeguards children, and in some research on middle class, White, 2.4 children families this might be ‘proven’ but if the safeguarding for children was dependent on staving off homosexual marriage then social workers wouldn’t be in existence prior to same sex marriage. There is an issue with safeguarding children with or without same-sex marriage.

6.Marriage is a unique biologically complementary relationship

Peter: Marriage is the only legal union which can naturally lead to children. It takes both a man and a woman to produce a baby. The fact that there is a natural link between sexual intimacy and procreation is what makes marriage distinctive and different. Redefining marriage will undermine this distinctness and difference and risks normalising the technological instrumentalisation of reproduction and increasing the number of families where there is confusion of biological, social and family identity.

Jeremy: The logical extension of your biological determinism would be that any heterosexual couple who were married and discovered they were infertile should be forced to get a divorce as they would no longer fulfil your 'distinctiveness' criteria and their marriage would therefore be invalid.

P: The distinctiveness criterion applies to the potential to have children by natural means, with or without assistance. This is not an option for same sex couples whose procreation depends on gamete donation meaning that their children are not biologically related to both parents

Richard: Sorry, there are plenty of Hetrosexual couples who are not able to have children even with assistance. I think we get this "marriage is for procreation" from Genesis chapter 1 or 2 - and lets face it, neither of these chapters are historically relaiable. A gay married couple are capable of properly bringing up children - that's the point. I know several who have done this.

DIng ding ding, end of round 6. This is not a reason to deny same- sex marriage. Firstly, for the point Jeremy makes. Secondly, many things aren’t ‘biologically complementary’ yet there is no problem in external assistance to enable their functioning. For example, someone who was born with no legs is not ‘biologically complementary’ with walking, yet there is no moral dilemma about providing prosthetic legs to enable a person to walk. 

Thirdly, in case that link seemed to tenuous, babies (should be) borne out of love that two people have for one another, so whether the baby comes naturally, with help, or from the orphanage’s catalogue, it is still an expression of love between two people, and brought up with love, regardless of the parts between the parents’ legs.

Fourthly, has Peter ever watched Jeremy Kyle? Obviously biological, social and family identity are threatened in many people’s lives, despite being married, due to extra marital affairs, abuse, etc. Would a child produced by a wife and her extra-marital partner be any less viable than the children she produced within her marriage?

It is idealistic to view marriage as being a container for appropriate reproduction.

7.Redefining marriage will be complex and expensive

Peter: Redefining marriage could cost billions and involve amending hundreds of pieces of government legislation. The word 'marriage' appears 3,258 times in UK legislation, which underlines the central role the institution plays in national law. Introducing same sex marriage is a legal can of worms which cannot be achieved without changing the common and legal definition of the word marriage and other words which define it(eg. ‘husband and wife’, ‘consummation’ and ‘adultery’). These changes will inevitably change the definition and nature of marriage for opposite sex couples by trying to accommodate these two very different kinds of relationship under one legal umbrella. According to an assessment done for gay rights group Stonewall by a former civil servant, the cost of implementing one favoured option would be around £5 billion. This figure relates to a theoretical increase in straight couples taking up the opportunity of civil partnerships, with knock-on implications to their entitlement to pension and tax benefits. This is simply not a priority for government at a time of economic recession as it will confer no new rights. 

Jeremy: And there are too many old people so we should just introduce compulsory euthanasia because of the costs. Pointless argument.

P: This is a non-sequitur. My point is that a costly and complex legal change that confers no new rights is not a priority at a time of economic recession – or ever. 

Richard: No new rights - but still discrimination. Discrimination of any kind on the grounds of race, gender or orientation is abhorrent and should not be allowed to stand in any decent society.

Ding ding ding, end of round 7. “This figure relates to a theoretical increase in straight couples taking up the opportunity of civil partnerships” at the moment, that is not being proposed, as it says in the consultation document that is is not being considered because there is not sufficient demand for it to be legalised. 

UK legislation is constantly in flux, with amendments happening all the time on all types of issues, and I assume redefinitions have been part of that in other contexts too. 

If the government weren’t willing to invest the cost on this issue then they wouldn’t be holding consultations over it at all. 

At the end of the day, cost shouldn’t be a reason for withholding equality.

8.Schools will be forced to teach about the new definition of marriage

Peter: Under existing education law schools will be required to teach children that marriage can be between a man and a woman, between two men or between two women. This will confuse children whose parents may wish to teach them according to their own values and worldview. Those parents who object could be undermined in their children’s eyes, stigmatised as homophobics and bigots and prevented from full involvement in schools.

Jeremy: So what? I think most children are already aware that gay people exist. What people believe and teach their children is their own business so long as it harms nobody else. You seem to suggest that parents who are homophobic would be excluded from participation in schools which is simply hysterical nonsense. For your information there are more state funded religious schools at the moment than at any point in the history of the UK. Those with religious beliefs are being accommodated more than ever within society.

P: I repeat that if the law changes schools will be required to teach children a new definition of marriage that is a legal fiction. And parents with traditional views will as a result be discriminated against. That will be inevitable. 

Richard: I am a teacher and I'm sure that I have on occasions taught things that have conflicted with the views of some parents. For instance, I teach that racism of any type is wrong - and I know that some sets of parents still use racist language and have racist views at home. Are they being discriminated against - I'm happy to tell their children that such views are wrong. I will also argue with children of parents who tell them that donating blood is wrong and that the world was created in six days (which it was not). To call this discrimination is rubbish - there are opposing views. The child and the parent are at liberty to hold these views - but being told that there is another view does not undermine their rights to hold them - only their right to live in a bubble and have nothing to do with society - which is not right. This argument really is nonsense of the first degree. And if the legal definition of marriage is changed - it is hardly a legal fiction is it? It's the law - and should be made clear.

Ding ding ding, end of round 8. Firstly, what Richard said. And secondly, since 2003 homosexuality has been legal to teach in schools, meaning the next generation of kids aren’t going to be as sheltered from diversity as older generations may have been. For them, legal same sex marriage is likely to be intuitive and expected. 

As Jeremy said, ‘so what’ and as Richard says, schools already teach views that may conflict with parents’ views. 

9.Redefining marriage will not stop with same sex marriage

Peter: In Mexico same sex marriage was followed by two year fixed term marriage. In Canada legalising same sex marriage has led to supporters of polygamy demanding in the courts for their unions to be recognised. If the legal definition is changed to accommodate same sex couples other minority groups with a vested interest (eg. Muslims, Mormons, Bisexuals and Polyamorists) will have a much stronger case to argue for the legalisation of polygamy and group marriages. The best defence against this is to keep the legal definition of marriage unique and distinct – ‘one man, one woman, for life’. 

Jeremy: There is no evidence for any of these assertions

P: It is already happening in Mexico and Canada as I outlined. 

Ding ding ding, end of round 9. I would personally argue that people are homosexual by nature. This is contested, but I defy anyone to choose the gender of who they are attracted to (did you choose to be attracted to people of the opposite sex?). Polygamy, I would argue, is not an innate sexual orientation.

My main argument for allowing a same sex couple to marry is that two people in love should not be denied a life long, monogamous commitment based on one body part being the same where it should be different. I think the argument for legalised polygamous marriages is based on entirely different premises which would require entirely different arguments for and against which is unrelated to this current argument. It’s like the green apples saying to the red apples “you are not allowed to share a cupboard shelf with us” and the red apples protesting that they are still apples and should be allowed the same rights. Suggesting the bananas may then want on the apple shelf for the same reasons as the apples is ridiculous, bananas would need a whole new repertoire of justifications for why they should be allowed on the shelf, and cannot say that they should be allowed just because the red apples are, because clearly the red apples have better justification for their argument.

10.Redefining marriage will lead to faith-based discrimination

Peter: We have already seen a rising tide of discrimination against people who support traditional marriage as a result of the legalisation of civil partnerships coupled with new equality legislation.. If same sex marriage is legalised faith-based employers who provide special health benefits to married employees would be required by law to extend those benefits to same-sex ‘spouses’. They would also face lawsuits for taking any adverse employment action - no matter how modest - against an employee for the public act of obtaining a civil ‘marriage’ with a member of the same sex. Faith-based adoption and fostering services that place children exclusively with married couples would be required by law to place children with persons of the same sex who are civilly ‘married’. Marriage counsellors from faith backgrounds would be denied their professional accreditation for refusing to provide counselling in support of same-sex ‘married’ relationships. All these moves would place faith groups in the invidious position of being forced to act against their consciences or face marginalisation, exclusion and litigation and would further fuel social fragmentation, sectarianism, antagonism and civil unrest.

Jeremy: Couple X can do Y. Couple Z cannot. Enabling couple Z to do Y does not in any way discriminate against couple X. Equality is equality is equality. If you break the law then you have to live with the consequences. Feel free to be homophobic, intolerant, bigoted, discriminatory and hateful within your own religion but step outside into liberal society and try and do the same thing and I'm afraid you will suffer the consequences of your actions.

P: You are arguing here that gay rights trump all other rights. I’m afraid that I don’t accept that. People should not be forced to act contrary to their consciences. Reasonable accommodation should always be made in a free and democratic society but there are a raft of UK cases which already demonstrate that when the law changes in these areas they lose that freedom

Richard: Once again. Rubbish! No one is forcing anyone to enter into a marriage with a member of the same sex. Hetrosexual couples will still get married, in churches and registry offices and country houses. That won't change. Exactly who's rights are being trampled here. Who is being forced to act contrary to their conscience. Who? And to do what? What, exactly are you frightned of?

Ding ding ding, end of round 10. Religion is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010, this is why Christians are able to argue cases of perceived discrimination in court without being laughed out the building. There is legislation in place specifically to protect Christians from this discrimination, what more do you want?! This is scaremongering, as Christians are already legally protected.

Even if in some cases faith-based discrimination does occur, and isn’t ruled as unlawful when the case is taken to court, there are a thousand and one other reasons for it before the gay issue. What I mean by this is that allowing same sex marriages only opens up a small strand in which there are some new, potential discriminations; the ones that Peter lists. These discriminations will be treated in the same way as all the many other cases that Christians face, for example not being allowed to wear a cross. 

These situations where a Christian is caught between their ethics and what is legally expected of them in the workplace are few and far between, most of the time the individual Christian takes the action they choose, which can then either be fine or has to be contested in court to check if it was reasonable. Adding on a few scenarios where this could occur by opening up marriage to people of the same sex isn’t going to have a huge difference on what is already the case for Christians (especially as there are civil partnerships which have already introduced the first wave of new discriminations). 

Basically, it is extreme to suggest that opening up gay marriage will suddenly mean Christians are being discriminated against willy nilly. Yes, it may present a few more dilemmas for Christians than are already existent, but it is not some major difference, and even if it was, Christians are still protected by law to stand by their faith.