Final briefing on same sex marriage

Greetings all. I'm Peter. Saint Peter if you prefer. But we are all saints, of course, as you Evangelicals know. You are all here to explain to the Almighty why you have opposed same sex marriages before you go to your eternal, um, reward.

We don't normally do pre-Judgment briefings here. But it's a sensitive subject. The Almighty is expecting an I-told-you-so from Bishop Gene Robinson, which he is not looking forward to. Most of you will understand.

Anyway, to business. First thing you will need to explain is what part of 'There is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, nor is there male and female' you do not understand. We kind of thought that made things clear. The Almighty cares nothing about gender differentiation on anything.

ANYTHING! Your teachers can be men or women. So can your butchers, bakers and candlestick makers. Your elders, pastors and deacons can be either. Your bishops and arches, if you insist on such bizarre personages, can be either. Your marriage partner can be either. There is no distinction. Are you popes up the back paying attention?

Now, a tip for those of you depending on the Genesis creation story. You have no idea how that gets our quince up here. You think you are so funny – yes, I am looking at you Baptists – repeating 'God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve'. Hoho, very clever. But what about King David and all his wives? He has a fair bit of street cred here. Did it occur to you that this shatters your puny little one-man-one-woman joke? Except it isn't a joke it if means that people you should have welcomed have … Okay, we'll deal with that later.

Oh, and, by the way, if the Adam and Eve story allows no variation, why did you not preach damnation to singles? A man with a man is a lot closer to a man with a woman than a man who chooses no partner at all. So have your answer to that one ready also, please.

Now, for those of you who, like me, try to use specific texts to justify your position, good luck. When I tried that at Caesarea, I found … hey, you know about that already.

Now, where was I? Yes, specific verses. I have fifteen here not worth trying. Waste of time. Forget Deuteronomy 23:17. Relates to ritual sex in temples. No use quoting 1 Kings 14:24, 1 Kings 15:12, 1 Kings 22:46 or 2 Kings 23:7 unless you want to look like a Shittite. They all relate to same-sex prostitution.

Whatever you do, don't mention Sodom and Gomorrah. That story was about gang rape, not loving unions. But actually, even that wasn't the real problem. Sodom and Gomorrah were whacked for neglecting the poor, as Ezekiel 16 makes perfectly clear. So best keep quiet about Genesis 19, especially those of you from rich countries.

Now, Leviticus. Hands up all those with a finger holding their bibles open at Leviticus? Thought so. Well, I hope you have all faithfully stoned rude children to death, and have never eaten shellfish, rabbit or pork. Or worn clothing made from more than one material. I trust you have excommunicated any couple who has had sex during the wife's period. If not, best keep Leviticus shut.

Surely Jesus made it abundantly clear those old laws were for an old world long gone. If you have ever quoted Leviticus, then I hope you used a hefty whack of scholarship. And had a pretty good grasp of pagan idolatry in general and the god Molech in particular. Personally I couldn't be bothered myself. I only ever quoted one passage from Leviticus. And it certainly wasn't a rule restricting behaviour.

If you have really studied Leviticus you will know most regulations are totally irrelevant to life after about 200 BC.

Okay. Yes, you holding up the King James Version? You are going to ask me about Leviticus 18:22 or Leviticus 20:13, right? Well, if you are going to quote those passages, make sure you know the Hebrew: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

"and with male not you-shall-lie-down beds-of woman. abhorrence she." It's talking about threesomes! Two men and a woman in bed together. Don't pretend to be shocked, you over there with the ridiculous dog collars. Sex with three people.

Maybe that's your problem … so prudish you are embarrassed to talk about real sex. So you distort this passage to refer to gay people. How convenient.

Now. The words of Jesus. Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6. "From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female." This is a celebration of God's gift of love and intimacy for all mankind. If you have twisted these to condemn those who do not fit your narrow, prudish conservatism, then think again. Fast.

And my old mate Paul. We all know he could be dogmatic, as Barnabas and I both found out in Jerusalem back in … Well, that's another story. But Paul is certainly no bigot and he has no problem whatsoever with loving relationships between people of any gender. Just with abusive relationships.

Romans 1:26, if you had actually read it in context, is about straight people looking for cheap thrills with gay sex. First Corinthians 6:9 lists just five of the many behaviours God abhors, both same sex and opposite sex. None of these refers to life-long loving unions between same sex couples. The word usually rendered 'homosexuals' here is 'arsenokoites' in Greek, right? This means 'homosexual offenders'. O F F E N D E R S !

Paul uses the same word in First Timothy 1:9. But it is never used elsewhere in Greek to refer to gay relationships. Check with Paul later, if you like. He's busy at the moment with Mary Mackillop and Florence Nightingale discussing women staying silent in church. He'll be free, um, later.

But I'm pretty sure you'll find he was referring to the age-old practice of married men out for fun with male prostitutes. Or worse, ritual prostitution in the temple. That was some problem a while ago, let me tell you.

Finally, first Peter 4:3 lists records six sexual no-nos. Excellent list, if I do say so myself. Faithful gay relationships is not among them.Of course, if I had known you lot would misinterpret everything so homophobically, I'd have been clearer. So would the other writers I suspect. We thought Jesus abolishing all gender distinctions was clear enough. Silly us.

Okay. Those are the verses you will find useless. I hope for your sakes you have others. Off you go. Just past those gates. Do you like the gates, by the way? We have a small percentage of angels here with extraordinary class and style in aesthetic matters.