Demanding the rights of gays to marry in Church is as ‘logical’ as the atheists demanding the right to be baptised as atheists! It is bizarre that the pro-gay liberal brigade wants the Christian Church to endorse homosexuality, when it is clearly condemned by God in the first place. Like theft, adultery, murder and rape, homosexuality is also a sin according to all the Abrahamic faiths (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) and the bulk of other faiths and non-faiths also have a similar position. Surely, the logical place to start would have been to demand that the Church adopt a secular book of prayers and abandon the Bible. Then whatever the current fad is the Church can endorse.
The pro-gay camp has always argued to keep religion out, as they argued on the basis of secular values of personal freedom; thus, it is for free individuals to decide what activities take place inside their bedrooms. The argument more or less goes along the lines, if two consenting adults are in love, it is their ‘right’ to form a relationship, so keep God out of it, this is the 21st century. Yet, now they want bring to God and religion into it. For decades, religion was the enemy and they derided the values of this institution, so why are they seeking its approval now? This shows the contradictory nature of secularism.
Of course, they cannot obtain that endorsement from devout Christians; hence they are using the legal instrument to coerce the Church to comply. The secular institution is the new Pope or Archbishop, dictating what values the Church should endorse. Unfortunately, some Christians have already submitted to the liberal bullies; they have literally bent over exposing their rear ends, preaching the alleged biblical justification for the joys of homosexuality. This is one step away from endorsing the slur that Prophet Jesus did not marry, because he was not attracted to females, implying the obvious.
We should be able to have an open debate on this subject under the much lauded notion of free speech or it can get stifled by the pro-gay liberal fanatics, using the slur of homophobia. As expected, the liberals have the conservatives on the run. David Cameron signs up to the notion of gay marriage in Church, but I doubt very much he would be happy in his heart, if one of his sons decided to engage in sodomy or the equivalent for the female child.
There has not been a free open debate on the subject; the vast majority of the population in this country do not subscribe to homosexuality as a norm that should be promoted or normalised. The so-called opinion polls reflect years of indoctrination through the media, and has created a fear of the stigma of being called homophobic. Consequentially, the masses either keep silent or make the usual statement; I have no objection to two people engaging in such acts, which reads, as long as this is not brought into my house. Well now it is brought into our houses through the medium of prime time television accompanied by legislation and our young children are indoctrinated in schools.
To appear politically correct, many have gone along with the baseless argument that homosexuality is natural and should be given the same recognition as heterosexual relationships. If it is natural, then it should exist in nature, but nature dictates that only heterosexual relationships can lead to the existence of homosexuals in the first place. Leaving aside artificial methods of science, going back to real nature, for the bulk of human history, what contribution has homosexual relationships made to procreation? Therefore, nature has long demonstrated that homosexuals cannot sustain themselves without heterosexual activity. Since homosexual activity works against the forces of nature (pro-creation), in that case, how can they be given the same rights and recognition as the fertile heterosexuals?
Human history for thousands of years have evolved through heterosexual activities, male and female joined to form the basic social unit of family, this is a fact that nobody can contest. We do not know of any societies that has evolved through pure homosexual practices and flourished, at the very least they would have to be bisexuals to procreate.
If the legalisation of gay marriages in the UK constitutes progress, surely there is more to come, unless we have reached the apex of progression. Accordingly, it is reasonable to ask what else could be legalised under this current trend of progression. The answer obviously lies in what is prohibited by law at present. This may give hope to those engaged in incest, paedophilia and other exotic fetishes that I do not remotely understand.
The underlying argument presented by the gay faction is: two consenting adults have the right to form a legal relationship if they are in love, but then where does one draw the line. What if two consenting adults are related by blood? And incest is already legalised in countries like Holland. Do we want to then legalise and bring this into the school curriculum and teach our children that such relationships are acceptable? Do you think it’s healthy and acceptable to tell your sons and daughters that they can engage sexually with close members of the family? Or have we not progressed to that stage yet!
