My eye has this morning been caught by two quite different blog posts, both of them in quite different ways commenting on the way in which homosexuality has been recently covered in the media.
One is a post (or, more accurately, a re-post) about Pope Francis' remarks during the flight back to Rome from Rio: Gay men and the priesthood: change in content, or difference in style? This post offers an interesting range of suggestions about the way in which the lives of homosexual persons might be understood within the Christian mystery.
The second post, quite different in nature, commented on the reaction of the great and good to the passing of legislation that would allow same-sex couples in the UK to marry: Best Place To Be Gay? It is also worth looking at another post on Alan's blog at the same time: Farewell Freedom of Speech. This post prompted me to reflect that what has been debated in the media and in Parliament in terms of rights for gay people, in terms of "equality" and in terms of "redefining marriage", and which has been presented as almost universally accepted in society at large, is in reality a much more varied and complex phenomenon. Some aspects of this are reflected in Alan Craig's posts. What I wonder about, though, is the real sense of what the person on the Clapham Omnibus believes about same-sex marriage. Not what they would say if they were asked by an activist or by an opinion poll - the "correct" answer has been made far too clear for all but the most courageous to give any other answer, both by the great and good and by the less good, as indicated in Alan's posts. But what would they say if they weren't asked, if they were genuinely left to manifest or express what they believe?