Posted by: stpowen | March 17, 2012

Letter to an M.P. on Homosexual ‘Marriage’

Matthew 19:4-6.  “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?”

“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.”  Lewis Carroll- Alice through the Looking Glass.

British readers of this Blog will  know that the Government has just launched a ‘Consultation’ as to whether homosexual couples should be able to ‘marry.’  This, of course, is in addition to the Civil Partnerships that were introduce about twelve years ago and give homosexual couples exactly the same staus before the law as married heterosexuals.  Those of us who believe that marriage marriage was ordained by God as the first social institution (Gen 2:24) and that it is the very bedrock of our society are seeking to oppose this as well as we can, and there is a petition that has been launched declaring  that marriage should be left alone  http://c4m.org.uk/  Although the site promoting the petition is a coalition of Evangelical groups and Roman Catholics, which Martin would not usually support, he does not feel that signing the petition is in any way supporting the Church of Rome and should therefore be done.

However, many politicians do not take much note of petitions.  They reckon, quite rightly, that very often people will sign a petition thrust in front of them without reading it.  It is therefore important that everyone opposed to homosexual ‘marriage’ should write to his Member of Parliament.  Martin Marprelate has already done so.  Here is his letter.  It is not necessary for everyone to right at such length; even a very brief letter will have an effect.  Martin’s former M.P. once told him that on many important issues of conscience he simply counted the letters on each side of the argument and voted for the side with the most.  So much for principle!  

 Mr. A. N. Other, M.P.,

House of Commons,

London SW1A OAA. 

Dear Mr. Other,

 I am writing to express my deep concern at the proposal to formalize marriage for homosexuals.  Indeed, as a life-long Conservative voter and a member for many years, I am amazed that the government should even consider such a thing.  There are five main reasons for my concern.

1. Marriage at all times and in all countries has been the union of a man and a woman.  At various times in the past, as in Ancient Greece, homosexuality was regarded as quite acceptable, but there was never so much as a thought that two people of the same sex could be married.  Nowhere in the world, until the last few years, has homosexual marriage even been considered.    The Lord Jesus Christ quoted from the opening chapter of Genesis when He declared, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (Matthew 19:5).  The word marriage means what it means- the union of a man and a woman and the government has no right to change it.  I therefore find it very sinister when your colleague Llynne Featherstone said,

‘Some believe the Government has no right to change [marriage] at all; they want to leave tradition alone. I want to challenge that view – it is the Government’s fundamental job to reflect society and to shape the future, not stay silent where it has the power to act and change things for the better.’ 

 I am not sure whether to quote Humpy Dumpty or George Orwell in response to this:  “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.”  Can the government really legislate to change the meaning of words at will?  If you have read Orwell’s 1984, you will know that the dystopian government depicted in that book really did try to do such a thing through ‘Newspeak,’ declaring, ‘War is peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.’  Ms. Featherstone and Mr. Cameron may loudly proclaim that ‘Homosexuality is Marriage,’ but that doesn’t make it true.

 Moreover, if marriage can be made into a sort of wax nose to be pushed into any shape that the government of the day may desire, why should it stop there?  Why should there not be multiple marriage, say of three men and five women?  I understand that someone is already going to court in Canada demanding this very thing.   Why should I not marry my dog or my horse?  Once the meaning of a word has been lost, it is open to whatever interpretation anyone wants to put on it.

 2.  The primary purpose for marriage is not for people who love each other to enter into some sort of formalized relationship.  I love my children, my brother and my dog, and I’m sure they love me, but that is not a reason for me to marry all or any of them.  Indeed, I am commanded by the Bible to love my enemies, but I am not expected to marry them.  According to the Anglican 1662 Prayer Book, ‘First, it was ordained for the procreation of children……’  Anything else came second or third.  As Conservative minister Iain Duncan Smith has pointed out, it is established by innumerable surveys that children thrive best in a family where there is a mother and a father who are married to each other.  Homosexual relationships are by their very nature sterile, and therefore a union between two people of the same sex fails at the first hurdle of any definition of marriage.  I might add that it is of the greatest importance for young boys to be brought up with their father present.  Homosexual adoption is no substitute whatsoever for a loving family with a mother and a father.

 In October 2000, the then Home Secretary, Jack Straw said, “Marriage is about a union for the procreation of children, which by definition can only happen between a heterosexual couple [sic]. So I see no circumstances in which we would ever bring forward proposals for so-called gay marriages.”  Where the Labour Government feared to tread, the Coalition is rushing in.

 3.  Homosexual practice carries severe health risks, both physical and mental, and the government should be discouraging the practice rather than promoting it.  It is well known that H.I.V. infection is four times more prevalent among homosexuals than among heterosexuals.  It is less well known that other STDs such as syphilis, gonorrhoea and genital warts also afflict homosexuals more than others.  In an edition of Pink News only two or three months ago, the readership was warned of an outbreak of dysentery among the homosexual community.  The mind boggles!  Back in 2010, the same magazine ran an article in which it admitted that far from being ‘gay’ in the true sense of the word, homosexuals were much more prone to depression, self-loathing, self-harming and suicide than heterosexuals.  Pink News, being a leading newspaper for the homosexual community, is unlikely to be lying or exaggerating about these matters.  Is it really wise therefore, for the government to be encouraging homosexuality?  I would add that my concern in this matter was first ignited some years ago by the death of a dear cousin who had adopted a homosexual life-style, from A.I.D.S. at the age of 48.

 4.  Homosexuality is not a state or a condition with which people are born.  There is no evidence whatsoever for a ‘gay gene’ that disposes some people irrevocably to homosexuality.  Homosexuality is ultimately a life-style choice that certain people make.  There may be various reasons for that choice; it seems that young men with absent fathers are more likely to fall into a homosexual life-style.  However, thousands of people have abandoned homosexuality as a way of life and no one should be fooled into thinking that it is an irreversible condition, any more than, say, a gambling addiction is irreversible and there is no reason why the government should pander to it..

 5.  To legislate for homosexual ‘marriage’ demeans something that the Bible calls ‘honourable among all’ (Hebrews 13:4).  Already I have to fill in various official forms asking for the name of my ‘partner.’  I play tennis or bridge with a partner;  I married a wife.  In Spain, the marriage forms have exchanged ‘husband and wife’ for ‘Progenitor A and Progenitor B.’ How wretched!  The homosexual lobby wants ‘husband and wife’ to be abandoned for ‘participators in the marriage.’   I object in the strongest terms to having my marriage relationship of 32 years suddenly changed into something else.   What card shall I be sending to my wife next year?  Will it be one that says, “Happy Progenitor B Day”?

 I read today that Lynne Featherstone has said that she is determined to change marriage whether the public likes it or not.  How dare the government ride rough-shod over the views of the public like this!  No party had this proposal in its manifesto, and there is therefore no mandate for it.  If the Coalition is determined to proceed with this wretched business then let us have a referendum on the matter.  Let the people decide!

 I have been a life-long conservative voter until very recently, and in the past I was a Conservative District Councillor and Chairman of a local Conservative association.  The party will alienate its traditional supporters at its peril.

 Yours sincerely,

Martin Marprelate

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Wow—ugly and ignorant

  2. Hello Mr Flanagan,
    If my letter is ignorant, you have failed to show where its ignorance lies. Are my arguments incorrect or my facts mistaken? If so you need to prove it.

    Ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. If my letter is read by homosexual who then realises that he is not locked into that unhappy lifestyle, then it will will be the very opposite of ugly. ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news.’

  3. A great letter

  4. Hi Kevin,

    I just want to tell you that Jesus loves you. I know it’s true because I read about it in my bible. I prayed for you today.

    Dafc1Fan


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: