"For while some are incapable of marriage because they were born so, or made so by men, there are others who have themselves renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let those accept it who can."

What does this Bible quote mean? To some it would suggest that God is clearly acknowledging homosexuals and even going one step further and encouraging their acceptance. To others it clearly refers to those who are born unable to produce children. Unfortunately Jesus does not have Twitter so we can't ask him exactly what he meant in his statement. I'm being flippant, of course I am, but only for the purpose of highlighting the huge difference in society from the time of Jesus to the time we live in now. I've always been fascinated by Faith and how millions of people around the world live their lives based on the teachings of one man who lived over 2,000 years ago. From my History and Religious Studies lessons at school, I do believe that there was a man called Jesus and he did travel around speaking to the masses trying to encourage them to lead decent lives. Was He the Son of God? I don't know. Does anyone know? I'd argue that they don't. I understand that many many people 'believe' that Jesus was the Son of God but that is different to 'knowing' something surely? Well that's where Faith comes in.

To a non religious person Faith could be seen as illogical. It suggests a blind will to dismiss common sense, logic and reason. To those who have Faith this suggestion would be rather insulting. People with Faith are simply enlightened, unlike those without it. The Bible itself says that Faith is, "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."  (Hebrews 11)

In Christianity, Faith is not concerned with obedience to a given set of rules; it is about learning God's teachings and understanding what those teachings mean to the individual. Clearly the Bible plays a huge role in this process which is why I opened this essay with a quote. It's a rather important quote in my opinion as it offers an insight into Jesus' teachings on homosexuality (depending on your interpretation of it). More than 2,000 years have passed since Jesus was born and society and culture has changed beyond comprehension since then. Clearly, some fundamental aspects of society haven't changed but the world in which we live in now is very different to the world that surrounded Jesus.

I'm not going to quote the numerous passages from the Bible that are often used to back up arguments that suggest hypocrisy in religion. You know, the one about not having sex with your wife if she is on her period or the one that says an adulterous man should be put to death. They are there though and sometimes are written so clearly and explicitly that it seems impossible to interpret them in any other way. So why don't those who insist that the Bible teaches against homosexuality also insist that these teachings are also upheld in our modern world? Well society would not allow it. Our attitudes have changed. There was a time when women were drowned for being accused of practising witchcraft. How ludicrous would it be for us to suggest we bring back that practice? Completely ludicrous.

I know that there will be those who are reading this now who feel that as a non-Christian I simply do not understand what I'm talking about because I do not understand God. Well I don't really care what these people think to be honest. I respect everyone's right to believe in what they want to but as soon as those beliefs (and that's all they are, beliefs) start to impact on my life and the lives of millions of other LGBT people around the world, that's when I adopt the 'I don't really care' stance. I'm a polite person, I'm a caring person and I believe that I live my life in a good way, always looking out for others and trying to make the right choices. I was born gay (there's no debate here so let's not even entertain the idea) and I choose to act on those feelings of same sex attraction, something that others may see as a sin.

The thing is I know that I live my life trying to do the best I can for my self and those in it. If God exists in a form that enables Him to judge, punish or reward, then I'm pretty confident that I'll be OK thank you. I think that life is not about what you believe or preach or challenge but about what you do. Those who use religion to mask sexism or homophobia have missed the point. If God exists in the form I mentioned then surely don't you think that he may be setting us challenges every day to test our own morals, standards and ability to show love to one another? I do. Maybe some of those passages in the Bible are examples of that; curve balls to test our ability to think on our own and make decisions based on what we feel not what we are told. He gave us the ability to question; maybe we should use it more than we do.

I always knew that this essay wouldn't be specific, tidy or particularly focused because of the nature of its subject. What I wanted to do was to simply lay out my stall and try to explain how I see my place in this world, a world where millions of people worship different Gods and have different beliefs. A world where millions of people have died and suffered in the name of religion, arguably doing what they felt God was asking them to do. It's not about being right and it's not about being wrong. Life is about doing what you think is right for you and those who you love. It's not about pleasing any Gods that may or not exist in various guises, it's about learning and growing and challenging your own ideals to ensure that you live a life that you would be happy with when it's all over.

I don't need a book to tell me how to do that but I understand that others do. I think some of the stories in the Bible are amazing and teach us so much about how we should treat our fellow human beings but surely life isn't about doing what we're told. That would be far too easy. It's about doing what we feel is right and there's a difference.

Jesus was born in a stable. When I visited the Vatican a few years ago I was astonished at the riches that were seemingly being hoarded and also displayed to the visitors. I'm sure the Pope loves to look at all of the shiny things but is that really what Jesus taught people was important? I'm no expert, but based on what I was taught in school I actually think Jesus would be pretty disgusted at the obsession with material wealth the Catholic Church seem to have. But what do I know?

I just hope that as human beings we all continue to question what we're taught and look inside ourselves for the answers, not to simply do what other people tell us to. If you're really and truly against marriage equality then maybe spend a bit of time thinking about what your views on divorce are. If you believe that being gay is just fundamentally wrong then maybe you should question why you think it is. Is it because you think that's what you should believe or is it because the idea of two men kissing and sleeping together makes you feel a bit sick. Be honest. I have straight mates who have no issue with me being gay but we don't talk about the physical aspect because it's not something they feel comfortable doing. Does this bother me? Not at all. I don't particularly want to hear about their heterosexual exploits! But I appreciate their honesty. The fact that we have different ideas of what is 'normal' in our sex lives doesn't mean that we can't be friends.

It would be impossible to live your life as the Bible suggests in every way possible in 2013. If it's necessary to adapt, pick and choose these aspects to fit life in 2013, then all I hope is that people don't let their closed-minded attitudes dictate which parts of the scripture they choose to ignore and which they choose to follow.

As always I encourage and look forward to your comments!

Wayne Dhesi
@WayneDavid81
@rucomingout

Read past blog entries by clicking here . . .

In the Sunday Times last weekend, gay Hollywood actor Rupert Everett said that he, "...couldn't think of anything worse than being brought up by two gay dads." Now I just want to say now that this blog entry isn't going to be concerned with trying to pointlessly destroy Everett's character or beating down his comment with aggressive gay defense talk. However, Everett's comments did bring the debate about gay parenting back into the public sphere again and so I thought it would give me the ideal opportunity to stick my oar in! So here goes.

An important thing to note is that Everett wasn't misquoted. He went on TV to defend his views this week where he said, "I’m not against anybody doing anything. I think the reason that’s great about living in England, is we can do more or less what we want. Just I, personally, feel like that. But it doesn’t mean to say,…I have lots of gay friends with children, I have lots of gay friends who have got married, I’ve been to lots of gay weddings, but I’m not big into marriage straight or gay to be honest."

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and as I said earlier, this blog isn't really about Everett, it's about his view; a view that is shared by many people around the world. A view, that for many reasons, I feel is ignorant and quite offensive to gay parents and children of gay parents.

In 2011 the number of children in care in England increased from 64,400 to 65,520 from the previous year. The majority of these children were living with foster parents, but almost 8,000 were in some kind of residential care. Now I'm not sure if you're shocked by those figures or not. I can't really say what my guess would have been before seeing those numbers to be honest but whichever way you look at it, it's pretty clear to me that there are a lot of children in England (and throughout the rest of the world) who are growing up outside of a loving home with a family who take care of them, love them, ecourage them and ultimately shape their futures.

There are various reasons why children are taken into care, but shockingly out of those 65,520 children who were living in care during 2011 in England, 40,410 were doing so because of family neglect or abuse in their family home. A further 8,930 were in care due to 'family dysfunction'. I couldn't find figures that broke down how many of these families were headed by gay parents but my assumption (and I'm open to discussion about this) is that most of them didn't. I base that assumption on the sheer number of 'traditional' families with straight parents than those with gay parents. I guess it doesn't really matter, my point isn't that straight parents are worse than gay parents, that would be ridiculous. My point is that there are many parents who for whatever reason, are unable to care for their own children, so much so that a huge amount are removed from the family home and placed in care homes and residential units.

I have friends, a couple who adopted their daughter and they do a great job looking after her, loving her and showing her right from wrong. It took them two and a half years from their first communication with the adoption agency to the point at which they were given custody of their daughter and this time was filled with interviews, observations and judgements being made as to whether they would make good parents. They obviously passed the relevant tests and it was decided that they were suitable to take care of a child. My friends are a straight couple by the way. No one could disagree that this little girl is better off in their care, growing up in a loving and caring home. So then, what if my friends were gay? What if they were two men? Again, I suggest that the little girl's home with her two dads would be a much more stable environment for her to grow up in rather than a care home. "But she won't have a mum", some people will say. "The poor thing will get bullied at school", others will claim. 

The fact of the matter is that the little girl, if adopted by two gay men who were in a loving, stable relationship, who had passed all the same tests as any couple going through the process, would be growing up in a safe, nuturing home rather than an under-funded, resource-stretched care home with no mother OR father figure to speak of. As for the bullying at school issue - children get bullied for having the wrong trainers, it doesn't mean we should ban cheap brands of footwear does it? In my experience as a youth worker, schools want to do their best to stamp out any kind of bullying and so the reason for the bullying is not really important. We can't deny a child a loving home just in case some of their classmates may have an issue with it years down ther line.

I would hope that the majority of you would agree that a child placed in a loving home with gay parents would be emotionally better off than if they were to be raised in the care system. If you don't then I'm happy to hear your argument. There's a comments box underneath for a reason! However, this brings me on to the crux of the entire debate I guess - Is having gay parents worse than having both a mum and a dad? The answer? It depends on the parents. It's as simple as that. I could use the argument that most gay dads or gay mums who have kids would have made the conscious decision to do so which would suggest that the child would be wanted. But it's not always the case that unwanted pregnancies in straight couples produce unloved children. I could use the argument that in my job I've met some truly awful mothers and fathers who beat their kids, abuse them and show not an ounce of love towards them; straight mothers and fathers. But we know these parents exist. I could start talking about children who grow up in single parent families without a mum or dad and play devil's advocate in suggesting that these children will somehow grow up damaged due to having an absent parent. I find this suggestion offensive. I know many single parents who make it their life's goal to give their kids a good life and the lack of a second parent does nothing to shake that.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that people who share Rupert Everett's view that children being brought up in families with same sex parents are somehow predisposed to a less enriching life than those in a 'traditional' family, should stop and consider what it is their suggesting. 

In an ideal world Dad wouldn't take heroin in front of his kids. 
In an ideal world Mum wouldn't be an alcoholic and forget to pick her kids up from school.
In an ideal world Dad wouldn't beat the crap out of Mum with the kids listening from upstairs.
In an ideal world Dad wouldn't have an affair and leave Mum to raise their kids on her own.
In an ideal world Mum wouldn't die of cancer leaving dad to raise his three young daughters.

We don't live in an ideal world Rupert, we live in the real world where bad shit happens. Having both a mother and a father isn't a magical recipe for a golden childhood, it can be, but that's dependant on the quality of the parenting, the love they have for their children and the relationships they work on forging with their children.

Parents should be judged on their parenting not on their sexuality. Kids are tougher than we give them credit for sometimes but one thing I'm certain of - I'd much rather have two dads who wanted me, loved me and worked two and half years to prove to some strangers they could care for me, than a mum and a dad whose lives I was simply a part of.

Wayne Dhesi
Founder of RUCOMINGOUT


Figures taken from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-15091270

Read about Rupert Everett's comments on gaystarnews http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/rupert-everett-defends-controversial-comments-gay-parents190912




 







.

Today I was asked to contribute a short piece of writing about my feelings on gay marriage or 'marriage equality' as I would rather call it.  It took me a few false starts before I found my flow and I soon realised that this was because I was thinking about my argument far too much. It's actually pretty simple. 

Here's what I wrote:

I've been to two weddings this year and I will have been to another two before 2012 is out.  That's what happens when you hit 30; all of your friends get married!

I'm not married but I do have a boyfriend of three years. Do I want to get married? Not at the moment, no. Do I want to have the option to get married one day?  Of course I do. Who wouldn't want to have the option? At the moment in this country I am not able to get married.  I can however have a civil partnership. The entire debate surounding 'gay marriage' is one of definition. Some religious groups are fighting to protect the term marriage to mean a  union of a man and a woman.  They claim to 'own' the term and suggest that altering it's definition to include same sex couples would basically undo years of tradition and simply cannot happen.  I disagree. Straight couples who do not wish to marry in a religious ceremony can have a civil marriage.  Gay couples can have a similar ceremony however it is not to be called a civil marriage but a civil union or civil partnership.  Why the difference?

The philosopher Confucius was born in ancient China in 551BC.  His definition of marriage goes like this, 'Marriage is the union of two different surnames, in friendship and in love, in order to continue the posterity of the former sages, and to furnish those who shall preside at the sacrifices to heaven and earth, at those in the ancestral temple, and at those at the altars to the spirits of the land and grain.'

Over half a century before the birth of Jesus, we see a definition of marriage with a clear absence of genders. I'd prefer to refer to this definition of marriage if that's ok.  There is no mention of God but of a spirituality and repsect for our land. 

The Church did such a good job in claiming marriage as their own and shaping it to fit their own values and agendas that as a society we have come to believe that the word itself is steeped in religion, when it simply isn't.

Many people argue that gay people are being awkward and simply stoking the fires.  After all, we can get civil patnered which gives us the same legal rights as straight married couples so why the persistance? The point is this. Just because I don't want to get married now, it doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to. The word 'marriage' does not belong to anyone, just look in the history books.  Times change and so do mankind's attitudes and just because some things are traditional it does not mean that they should not change over time.  It used to be traditional to drown women accused of witchcraft; it isn't now because that's ridiculous.

There are many arguments against gay marriage, none of which have any real substance. If indeed marriage is just a word, then allow us, the gays and lesbians of the UK, to use it too. No one likes being left out do they?

"Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself"*

*(Sound familiar? Well that was also Confucius by the way)