The Equal Marriage Bill

Analyses
by

Paul Burgess
Contributor to Embracing Truth: Homosexuality and the Word of God *

* Embracing Truth, Ed. David Torrence and Jock Stein, Handsel Press, 256pp 6.95, sold out in six months and is currently out of print. However, a DIGEST and STUDY GUIDE, (highly recommended for individuals and groups) can be downloaded free from www.handselpress.co.uk Also free to download are a SYNOPSIS and full EXTRACTS from the book. These aids have been prepared by Paul Burgess who contributed chapter 9 of ET: a summarizing REVIEW of Gagnons The Bible and Homosexual Practice

Whats Wrong With Same-Sex Marriage? The Key Arguments

THE ISSUES MAKING WORDS MEAN WHAT YOU WANT: The Humpty Dumpty fallacy (from Alice in the Looking Glass) The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things. (Alice) The question is which is to be master thats all. (HD) Distinguishing equality from equivalence is not discrimination Sexual intimacy of same-sex couples not equivalent to coitus union of heterosexuals. To object to a definition of motherhood that includes men is not discriminatory! DISCRIMINATION: About eligibility, not acceptance Marriage is not extendable as if entry rules can be altered to accommodate gays in the way an all male golf club might decide to change its rules to accept ladies. We rightly discriminate between trained doctors and quacks to ensure health and safety. EQUAL RIGHTS? Right to marry, but who? Equality of Right v. Equivalence of Rite! The universal right to marry is restricted: e.g. a father cannot marry his daughter. INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCES A QUESTION OF WHERE TO FOCUS Conjugal marriage has an inherent orientation to bearing and rearing children: Its distinctive structure (mother, father and child) is designed for this. It thus contributes to a stable society of which the family is a microcosm), developing norms of behaviour such as permanence, monogamy and fidelity. Same-sex marriage is essentially a romantic union between two individuals: A union of hearts and minds augmented by sexual intimacy, committed to sharing the burdens / benefits of domestic life. It lacks marital comprehensiveness and complementarity. WHY COMPLEMENTARITY MATTERS: Lack of complementarity affects same-sex unions Single gender input limits the couples relational development and stability. Without reproductive connection only adoptive / surrogate (i.e. parasitical) family is possible. A childs experience of parental role modeling is limited by only one gender. Boys and girls need and tend to benefit from fathers and mothers in different ways. CONSEQUENCES OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: Introducing same-sex marriage may well: A. Contribute to social instability by: Lessening marital stability by stressing emotional ties rather than bodily bonds Inducing public confusion about the responsibilities of marriage Depriving children of their normal right to the benefits of having both mother and father B. Reduce civil liberties by: * Introducing totalitarian intolerance of dissent about approval of same-sex marriage, HOW DEMOCRATIC? GAY CAMPAIGN FOR SOCIETAL CHANGE: Gay activists agenda. Change societys values and norms. (- Peter Tatchell) THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG: Same sex marriage a minority demand (0.3%) 18% of 1.6% gay population take up Civil Partnerships, not all of whom want SSM. Compare this 0.3% Civil Partnerships with 17.4% Disabled people. Yet resistance to same-sex marriage extends to almost every culture world-wide.

Ten Follies of Same-Sex Marriage

The British Governments proposed bill to legalize same-sex marriage is utter folly on ten counts. 1. It is political folly since those conservative-minded voters who will vow never to vote for a party that introduced Same-Sex Marriage, are many more than the miniscule number of the gay community who might thereby be persuaded to switch their allegiance to the Conservatives, George Osbornes optimism notwithstanding. (He ignored the fact that the majority of States in the USA have not voted for Same-Sex Marriage.) 2. It is philosophical folly to redefine so fundamental a word as marriage, as the following much quoted dialogue from Alice in the Looking Glass illustrates: When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, It means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less. The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things. The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master thats all. The intrinsic and indispensable properties that serve to charact-erize and identify marriage including its primary purpose - perpetua-tion of the human race and the raising of children - are inherent and unchanging in nature, no matter how the State or Law attempts to redefine it purely in the narrow individualistic terms of subjective love and mutual commitment. SSM is a basic category error. Also families, as a microcosm of society, will always be dependent on heterosexual begetting; same-sex parents will always have to import this element of marriage into their relationship. 3. It is societal folly since gay campaigners do not want to create a legal institution called "same-sex marriage", but want to redefine the one definition of marriage that applies to all of us, denying a five thousand year understanding of marriage as the union of a man and woman, as recognized worldwide by most nations laws. 4. It is a focus folly since it focuses on what adults want rather than on what kids need (i.e. what marriage is primarily about). 5. It is social folly, since well-adjusted families are the basis of a healthy society, and families with one-gender parents will inevitably be lacking certain elements of stable family life, such as the bodily union of one flesh that contributes profoundly to a couples emo-tional stability. Furthermore the ingredient of complementarity, both in the couple themselves and as parents bringing up children, is missing, resulting in weaker family development overall. 6. It is equality folly since it deliberately (by choice as opposed to unavoidably) denies the equal right of every child to know and, to the extent possible, be cared for by the two people who brought him or her into the world. Further, its very design denies children of a SS family the right to have both a mum and a dad. To equate the role and contribution of a mother with that of a father (and vice versa) is to fly in the face of the sociological facts. 7. It is legal folly in so much as the passing of any same-sex marriage legislation would produce a legal fiction, since marriage is intrinsically between a man and a woman. Further it would open the door to legal challenges to authorise incestuous marriages and other more bizarre marriages, such as polyamory. 8. It is moral folly since it promotes as normal and good what, until recently, was generally considered immoral and abnormal (and still is by most societies worldwide), undermining the natural order and morality, turning a moral wrong into a civil right. 9. It is constitutional folly for, as Prof Tom Devine, OBE, the Scottish historian, pointed out, it will be very difficult for the Queen to sign a bill enforcing in law what the Church of England, of which she is Governor, does not allow in its canons. Also many Christians in the UK feel that their Christian heritage is under attack because their constitutional right to assume traditional marriage as the norm is being stolen from them. 10. It is civil folly, since, by imposing its totalitarian acceptance on all society, it will inevitably repress any who oppose its validation and promotion of a gay lifestyle, whether in the public square or within the family. Those objecting to the revisionist definition of marriage will be labeled bigots and penalized for discrimination. - Paul Burgess (13/12/12)
(In response to the Governments proposals for legalizing SSM)

Boriss Balderdash!
Boris Johnsons call concerning the currently debated Same-Sex Marriage Bill to just whack it through shows not only complete contempt for those of us who believe that more fundamental issues are at stake than equality for all forms of loving relationships. It exhibits a fundamental ignorance of the real issues at stake. Also, ironically for a Conservative, it betrays a totalitarian view of society that has adopted the gay agenda to restructure society to normalize gay relationships as just another brand of marriage, in the process making all opposition to such an agenda politically incorrect. Traditionalists do not oppose this bill primarily on the grounds that it will result in discrimination against traditionalists, promises to the contrary notwithstanding. They oppose it in the first place because it will, in their view, ultimately have a highly detrimental effect on society at large. How is this? Marriage is by nature conjugal, joining man and woman in a union whose consummation normally is expected to result in the creation of a family. In such families both male and female parents with their offspring form a nucleus of society to which the parents contribute their complementary skills and insights in the nurturing and training of children for future responsible citizenship. It is this training to contribute to a healthy society that makes the characteristics of marriage in general, as well as the quality of particular marriages, so crucial for the future well-being of society. It is not surprising then that marriage, in this monogamous, conjugal, complementary, children rearing sense, has down the ages been seen as the bedrock of society, creating parental role models of stability and security, honesty and reliability, permanence and consistency: in short, integrity. Homosexual partnerships in general have not proved able to provide such role models. That some homosexual relationships do mirror some of these qualities, and that not all heterosexual marriages actually come up to scratch, in no way disproves the unique role and abiding value of traditional marriage in contributing to a healthy society. Even more fundamental to this whole debate, however, is the issue of the normalisation of homosexual activity. Already society is being brain-washed by the media into viewing same-sex activity as just another normal form of sexuality. (Those who deny this portrayal are dismissed as homophobic.) The fact that such activity actually has serious medical and psychological consequences is never allowed to surface in any debate which, to be politically correct, has to centre nowadays on a romantic notion of loving mutual commitment to which everyone has equal rights. Any future research into the consequences of same-sex activity will almost certainly be skewed in favour of positive evaluations as a traditional understanding of sexuality becomes increasingly discriminated against in the public sector. Only private beliefs, not expressed in public, will henceforth be tolerated once SSM is wacked through Parliament!

Equal Marriage and Political Double-Think A political take new and old
What is really behind the current gay marriage legislation? Just a desire to be abreast of public opinion that has moved on and show what a modernising Prime Minister we have? Vote winner? Or vote loser? Perhaps that isnt actually the only reason for Camerons enthusiasm for equality in matters of sex! UKIP think they have ferreted out the truth. Apparently an EU report due to be voted through the EU Parliament in November would see all marriages and civil contracts conducted in any EU country become legally binding in all other member states. That would allow a Scottish gay couple to marry in Holland and the next day back in Scotland proceed to claim 'all social benefits and other legal effects' such as legal recognition, tax breaks and benefit entitlements to a married couple, with such scenarios in effect forcing the status and benefits of same-sex marriage on all EU member states. So why did David Cameron bother to whack through (in Boris Johnsons infamous phrase) such a divisive and potentially destructive bill through Parliament? Because he believed it was a Conservative thing to do? A majority of his own back-benchers thought otherwise. Or is he trying to avoid a monumental EU/UK conflagration next year during the Euro elections, on the run-up to the 2015 General Election? (-archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com 6/2/13) It is worth noting that just as Britain went into a Common Market but found itself trapped in an ever closer union of, in effect, a Federal State, (something hugely deplored by many in his party) so Cameron has sprung upon the British people a very important societal change that was not mentioned in his partys manifesto. In both cases the British people were never consulted. Why should a referendum be needed, in Camerons view, in the former case and not in the latter? Footnote: From todays reading of Alec Motyers devotional commentary on Isaiah 14 v. 4: You [i.e. the Lords people] will publicise this expose of the King of Babylon [Heb] mashal, originally a revealing comparison of one thing with another, came to mean anything which exposed the real, inside story or significance. Perhaps this explains why King Cameron absented himself from Tuesdays debate!

Equal Marriage? What is really at stake? A Christian perspective

This weeks debate in the Commons on the Governments gay marriage bill was notable for a lack of engagement with the real issues at stake and thus missed the point of the argument for marriage. For there are many levels of engagement in this whole matter of whether marriage can be extended to include same sex couples. On the surface is a debate about social justice: the issue of whether denying gay couples the benefits of an official marital status is essentially discriminatory. These days Western society is increasingly governed by a politically correct human rights notion of equality. It is at this level that the proponents of gay marriage argue. On another level there is the question of theology, whether about the conclusions of a dogmatic theology based on the interpretation of the revelations of a Faiths sacred scriptures (tradition), or about the findings of a natural theology based on the studies of nature itself (human experience and scientific discovery). It is at this theological level that the proponents of a traditional concept of marriage argue. Attached to this theological level are two further areas of debate: 1. The philosophical discussion of the ontological (i.e. essential) nature of marriage. It concerns the issue of its category identification: is the essence of marriage about a heterosexual relationship or merely a sexual relationship? 2. The application of moral theology to the mores (relating to the moral attitudes and customs involved) of marriage. This concerns the morality of homosexual behaviour to be sharply distinguished from orientation (same-sex attraction). It should be noted that both these aspects of the subject probe deeper than either of the first two levels above. For while dogmatic theology may quote texts concerning the obligation of Faith adherents to a particular stated code of conduct, and natural theology may quote experiential evidence for its conclusions, it is moral theology that explores the reason for such a code and how the evidence of human experience should be evaluated morally. It is these two areas, ontological and moral, that were left largely unexamined by the timeconstrained debate this week. In other words, little thought was given to the question: What justification do each side have for the varied understandings they give to marriage? No thought whatsoever was given to the question: What constitutes moral sexual practice and why? On the scientific level no evidence was provided of the consequences of behaviour that violates such moral principles. No doubt this was because political correctness nowadays decrees that such a hot potato is not picked up for public debate. Even to question the morality of same-sex practice is to bring down charges of religious bigotry, homophobia and judgemental discrimination. Little wonder there was no engagement with the real issues at stake!