Anglican Mainstream

Imagine the scene: a top actress dies in her sleep in the sofa of a holiday apartment after a night partying.  While she is asleep her husband, a top film producer, is in the bedroom with someone he picked up at the party.  After the body is discovered we are told by the police that foul play was not involved (she was not murdered) and that she did not commit suicide – that she died of natural causes. What would the headlines be? While the stories would focus on the lost talent, give a history of the star’s successes and carry quotes of how wonderful she was, the tabloid papers would run with the fact that when the star died her husband was having sex with a stranger.  Others would shake their head and wonder about the nature of marital relationship that it could now be like this.  But of course that’s “Hollywood” for you.

 

The frightening thing is that something of this nature happened in October 2010 with the death of Stephen Gately.  The member of Boyzone and musical star died in his sleep while his civil partner of three years was in the bedroom with someone they had met whilst on holiday.  While the cause of death was fluid on the lungs, we do not know what preceded that.  There have been stories of drinking sessions, admissions by people there that they were smoking cannabis.  But why no real questioning of what Gately’s partner was doing that night?  Is this type of behaviour expected of the homosexual community? Or is it just that the media is afraid to report this type of behaviour for fear of being labelled homophobic and reported to the Press Complaints Commission and/or the police – as has happened to Jan Moir, a Daily Mail columnist.

 

We have two issues in this sistuation that we must face. The first is the issue of relationship types. The second is the ongoing battle for free speech

 

This type of relationship is what is called Open. While the partners are committed to each other, if they need sexual pleasures or fulfilment from someone other than their partner then this is fine.  While it would be a sweeping statement to say that all homosexual relationships are like this,  the only gay Christian commentator who takes the line of one partner to whom you are faithful for life (a homosexual equivalent of the stereotypical heterosexual monogmany) is Dean Jeffery John.  For all their postulating about equality, other gay commentators, both Christian and secular, see an open relationship as the norm - and as an ‘ex-gay’ this open style relationship was the norm in he lifestyle I was part of.  This fact is carried through by researchers who have a different standard of monogmany for homosexuals (under ten partners in a given period) than for heterosexuals (a single partner).  What is more worrying is that open relationships are becoming the norm for heterosexual relationships, with bi-sexuality becoming part of the equation.  It is now considered okay for a married man or woman to get sexual fulfilment outside the covenant relationship with someone of the opposite or the same sex.  This is one step from the next big “orientation” that is pushing for attention, the polysexual relationship where there are multiple committed partners in the relationship.  And yes, I saw this type of relationship springing up over ten years ago in the gay community.  So when these behaviours are taught in schools as natural and recognised in law remember the likes of Moirand the fact that she was shot down for asking questions about the place so much of this has started – the gay community.

 

Moving onto free speech, I wonder how many of the 21 thousand people who complained to the Press Complaints Commission read the article by Jan Moir. Or did they only hear about the story through Pink News or, more probably, the Twittering of Stephen Fry, David Baline and others?  In the 1960’s the Lord Chamberlain was the final decider of censorship for publication of books and production of plays. Now, nearly forty years after this role was removed from the Lord Chamberlain, we now have a new set of voices who, in the name of political correctness, try and dictate what can and can not be said.  Rather than the power of the law they are using the power of social networks and one name that keeps coming up is that of Stephen Fry.  Using his Twitter profile he called for people to complain about Jan Moir’s article and called for people to protest about the Sex and the City conference.  Of course he has the right to say these things, but he and others must start to respect those who, for whatever reason,  have something to say that they disagree with.  Attempting to silence a voice doesnot protect free speech.  We need to allow these discenting voices to be heard and let people judge them for themselves, as the BBC has attempted to do with Nick Griffin.  Only then can we see arguments in their true light and choose wisely.