I kinda feel the need to apologise for this one. I don’t watch TV news programs very much these days, nor much TV at all come to that, but I happened to walk past the TV when Mrs SAoT was watching SKY news.
Now if it’s lightweight, fluffy dross you want, SKY news is your thing. There are some decent correspondents ~ Tim Marshall in particular on the foreign affairs stuff is very competent and one or two of their defence analysts aren’t bad, but the studio presenters ~ oh dear. The morning show has the generic cliché blonde airhead and Eamonn Holmes. I think Viz have an interesting take on him.
Anyway, they do newspaper reviews (news commenting on news?) with the publicity-seeking lightweight D-lister making comments of such inanity that to call them shallow vastly overstates their depth. They are kind of media pond-skimmers, never really breaking the surface, making no waves at all.
Today’s commentary was about the Church and gay marriage. The celeb, perhaps not wanting to bite the media hand that feeds him, was predictably in support.
First off, Mr celeb didn’t seem to think the bible had a position on gay relationships one way or the other. Now if you are going on TV to make some points, here’s a hint. Have at least a remote, sketchy grasp of what you are talking about. It makes you look a bit less the twat. It seems to me difficult to argue that the bible is silent on the issue. By all means point out inconsistencies, say they are metaphorical, allegories for a simpler age if you want, talk about Constantine and the Nicene creed if you must but know the basic text.
But more significantly, why on earth would gay people want the legally enforced (and therefore surely utterly meaningless) blessing of the established church? Personally, I couldn’t care two hoots of the church find Mrs SAoT’s Muslim faith makes me an infidel, or whether they regard me as unmarried in the eyes of God. If they don’t want to marry me, so be it, it’s their belief system, not mine.
I do not require their blessing, their validation or any forgiveness. They can damn me to hell for eternity if they see fit. Nor in fact do I need the approval of the state. I see the argument (such as it is) for equal treatment before the law, though such an argument is simply an argument demanding equality amongst tax slaves, but okay.
So guys really. You don’t need people who believe in highly unlikely bronze-age stuff to say you are okay. You don’t need the government either; they are just a gang of coercively violent criminals. Live the life you want to live in freedom and happiness, just don’t try to use state violence to coerce others into declaring they believe something which many of ‘em patently do not.
You are trying to replace discrimination with thought-crime if you do that. As my mum used to say “just ignore them”