News:

If you have difficulty registering for an account on the forum please email antespam@gmail.com. In the question regarding the composer use just the surname, not including forenames Charles-Marie.

Main Menu

Gay marriage - the Church of England is shooting itself in the foot

Started by David Pinnegar, June 16, 2012, 12:03:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

David Pinnegar

Hi!

Taking a quotation from a recent thread:
QuoteI feel that even the attempt to rationalise or explain the creation and/or the creator, is either  doomed to certain failure or tantamount  to blasphemy; limiting even the idea of God to our own, miserable perceptions
I think it's a failure of the Church to really get to the bottom of its subject that has led it down paths of confused thinking, and a dispersed disarry of disagreements.

The issue of Gay Marriage surfaced in another thread about Places of Organs being under threat: http://www.organmatters.com/index.php/topic,1189.msg5413.html#msg5413

Christ's frustration with the establishment was that the establishment viewed life and the path to Heaven through fixed rules which had been passed down which both prescribed and proscribed behaviour. He found it inconceivable that humanity could not use its intelligence to work out what was good and what was bad.

What is good? What is bad? Ideas about this can go into very wishy-washy and nebulous realms but really does it not distill into what is constructive and what is destructive?

Elsewhere in these threads in recent months I've looked at the imagery of Genesis 1, not as a story, not as a scientific account, but as The Definition of God. What is the concept of God that we gain from there? I was mistaken in identifying the concept as the Creation of Order out of Disorder, and thanks to MM's dialogues here, it has come to be modified to The Force of Construction, the force that brings things together.

The Force of Construction also includes, as someone very aptly put it to me the other day, the Compost Heap Effect. Compost is the process of taking apart to enable regrowth, reconstruction, and within the compost heap there is such an amazing diversity of live. Perhaps I can foresee temptations towards discussion about comparative values of being the life of crops that grow as a result of the compost's goodness as against the life within the compost that results in the goodness . . . but that might be for another thread.

I have similarly pointed to Genesis 2 and 3, the story of the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Knowledge being that awakening of the human out of the animal state of unknowing. Unknowing of what? The ability of how systems work, so that we ourselves can go and grow our crops . . . sorry I did want to steer clear of compost . . . but it's demonstrative of our understanding of What Is - the Construction Force . . . which very confusingly we call God and mistake for a Big Daddy with a beard.

Taking the concept of the Construction Force, one can analyse the function of marriage within society, its morality and of issues of heterosexual and gay marriage.

From first principles therefore:
1. From the construction of Pandora and Eve, equivalent metaphors, mankind was given license by God, the Construction Force, to propagate, have children and populate the earth.
2. Construction Force

  • gave licence to marriage and the processes of the family to do this
  • legends, for instance that each of the gods inserted a component into Pandora, suggest that combinations of upbringing by two parents constructing children are better than one, and that therefore propagation through marriage is preferable to single parenthood
  • suggests that a marriage of two people enables mutual support in the long term so that they are not lost or a burden to strangers

Marriage resulting in children was clearly more in the direction of the Construction Force than marriage which did not result in children, but in the current circumstances of overpopulation an exclusive view that the purpose of marriage is to result in children is destructive to the planet, to our survival, and thus contrary to the Construction Force.

Meanwhile marriage which brings people together in mutual love and commitment must be seen to be the primary purpose of such a relationship in the caring and relief of human suffering.

For these reasons, there is nothing in my view contrary to the Construction Force in welcoming the human caring and certainties that result from marriage between two people who are incapable of having children.

Indeed Chinese attempts at population reduction have resulted in a most terrible imbalance between numbers of men and women. Frustrations among the excess of testosteronic beings kept in unstable states will lead to further terrifying population reduction by release of energy in war. Is that what Construction Force wants? As certain chemical molecules are happier in paired states such as O2 and H2, allowing permanent relationships between similar people will there contribute positively to peace, wellbeing and their occupation in the direction of Construction Force in contrast to war and unconstruction.

Does the Church want to disable itself from Christ being permitted to enter Chinese minds by way of prohibition of blessing states of peace and support between similar people? Is that what the Construction Force directs?

Christ asked us
1. to love God, the Construction Force, that created you and me and everything that has come together around all of us through the nature of everything to Construct and
2. bringing that commandment into the human realm, to love our neighbours as ourselves.

In acknowledgement of the Construction Force and the nature of process of thought that Christ ascribed to it, the Church should have cause to re-examine its rifts based upon purely fuzzy thought and inflexible worship of texts of their time rather than understanding of the process of Construction to which the texts that define it refer.

If the Church fails to do so, the places of organs are in danger.

If priests won't take the lead, it's up to organists to do so, to stand up and be counted, and in the words of the Delai Lama to youth in Manchester to
QuoteStand Up and Be the Change

Best wishes

David P

If the Church cannot



MusingMuso

I haven't much time to reply to this at the moment, due to an impending 50th Jubilee Mass for an ageing priest on Monday, which needs quite a lot of work if a disaster is to be avoided; the organisation lamentable thus far.

However, playing the role of God's advocate, (rather then the Devil's), and as a gay man, permit me to DEFEND the stance of the churches on this matter to a certain extent.

People need certainties in life and certain constraints on behaviour. Not only is marriage exalted, (because it brings order and meaning to the chaos of human sexuality), it is also an institution which brings benefits to society at large; certainly in terms of childcare and the nature of society. I believe it to be that fundamental, and I would wholeheartedly support the reverence for heterosexual marriage as one of the corner-stones of civilisation.

On that basis, if one reads the Gospels and especially the writings of St Paul, we come across passages which seem cruel, restrictive and, nowadays, very out of touch with reality.

But was St Paul just a bigot or an authoritarian?

I would state emphatically that this was not the case, because without healthcare, virology and specific medical knowledge, uninhibited sexual behaviour would have been, (and often still is), a major threat to the well-being of society. We had a lucky escape with the AIDS virus, which threatened to become a pandemic back in 1980 or so. I'm therefore quite sure that, in the absence of specific medical and viral knowledge, St Paul's writing were an act of real love; an attempt to protect people from the worst excesses and consequences of unrestrained promiscuity.

The fact that we now know the how and why of infection and prevention, eanbles us to take a very different stance on a whole raft of issues concerned with the private and public good, but one should hardly BLAME those who think of "normal" marriage as somehow a sanctified institution, considering the history and the success of it, as well as the benefits it has brought to society at large.

As David rightly points out, many religious people see everything in terms of a divine rulebook, and thinking outside the box requires good reason to do so. I think it is therefore a mistake to consider the question of gay marriage as somehow confrontational; even though it may be a battleground for those of a warring disposition and an easy source of conflict for those who like to play the power game and holier-than-thou card.

In the past ten years, I have seen a lot of civil partnerships disintegrate, simply because they were prompted by fashion or political posturing....two people who wanted to make a statement about themselves, rather than make a commitment to each other. On the other hand, I know a lesbian couple who have been together for 20 years, (one of whom was a single mother originally), and who have brought up a delightful young gay man, (which came as a pleasant surprise to them). Young David was a happy baby, a happy kid and now a happy adult....there is no greater tribute to the excellent upbringing by his "two mothers."

In the Netherlands, no-one seems to blink at this sort of thing, and indeed, there's a rather lovely song about it on Youtube, as follows:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qf0puHJ-KM

Another fact of life, concerns the nature of churchgoers, who tend to be either very young or increasingly elderly. The older people cannot be expected to change their ways or their beliefs overnight, and as I pointed out to an elderly lady who talked about "the sexualisation of children" at an early age, (not about exploitation), and they being introduced to the facts of life too early, she didn't like it when I pointed out that in the Netherlands, sex education starts at primary school, and as a norm, the children of the Netherlands start sexual activity at a much later stage in life than their UK and American counterparts. They also have the lowest incidence of STD's in the world, where AIDS was only ever a short-lived problem.

Changing people's perceptions and prejudices is never easy, but the key is long-term dialogue. So perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on the "traditionalists" who were brought up in a very different world. The only thing I would question, is why people brought up in the 1950's & 60's, and now getting on a bit, have forgotten all about free-love, flower-power and the sexual revolution. Perhaps they all went to strict schools where the teachers were nuns and monks!

So is "gay marriage" a good idea?

I'm not sure that it matters all that much, but I wlecome anything which is genuinely committed, positive and healthy, so perhaps I support it deep down, even though I still tend to think of it as a political statement; possibly quite wrongly.

We are all creatures of prejudice!

I wish I lived in the Netherlands. People wouldn't frown at my prejudices; they simply wouldn't understand them. In time, I would therefore become a better, more understanding and tolerant person.


MM

David Pinnegar

Dear MM

Thanks as ever for your inspiring contributions.

Of course gay marriage is a different kettle of fish from promiscuity. The institution of marriage as the commitment of two people to the support of each other is an expression of the construction force . . . which is why it is appropriately blessed in the place of focus of "the Construction Force" - Church - and promiscuity is a mixing up of all sorts of things including viral contagions, all together a mode of behaviour of disorder and unconstruction, contrary to Construction Force directions . . .

It was for this reason that I opened this thread suggesting that rationalisation of the concept of God and seeking to find some tangible criterion on which to explain God as a process, as a behaviour, can usefully guide us better in finding criteria with which to seek to guide the direction of humanity especially in the concept of having been made in God's image, the image of the Construction Force itself.

For another thread might be the concept that it's the ability of humanity to appreciate the Construction Force that defines us as against the animals for whom there is no such consciousness. Sadly, many humans appear to wish to live in the darkness of the animal state, unawakened. The church that cannot see the light with regard to issues that face the modern world is in the state of the limited paradise of the Garden Of Eden and anyone proffering the fruit of the tree of knowledge can no doubt be vilified as the serpent . . . The metaphors of Genesis are incomparably profound.

Best wishes

David P

MusingMuso

Dear David,

I forgot to address the legal issues surrounding marriage, which gay marriage would rectify when one partner dies suddenly or where there are matters of unresolved estate etc.  That is probably the biggest benefit, and one which makes fair a currently unfair situation.

Having got that out of the way, I wish you hadn't linked gay marriage to the alternative of promiscuity. From what I learn from teenagers and those who work closely with teenagers, I'm inclined to believe that both sexes are equally promiscuous, whatever sexuality may be involved. I suspect that the extent of this is not fully appreciated, and it is really part of the sexual revolution which now seems to be an accepted part of society. I further suspect that those who have never followed the same lifestyle, are probably very much in the minority, but I wouldn't like to put a figure on it.

I would question, I think, the idea that promiscuity is either disordered or destructive, anymore than driving very fast or partying are. It may be senseless enjoyment for the sake of it, but I don't think it does much harm by and large; assuming that people are cautious and informed. Alcohol and drugs are infinitely more destructive, and I spend quite a lot of my time talking to kids who do not realise the dangers; not always successfully it has to be said. I would personally take a draconian approach to both drugs and alcohol, but that wouldn't contribute the slightest. Far better, I suspect, to give kids the facts and point out the dangers, in the hope that they will eventually arrive at their own, sensible decisions, or not feel inhibited in seeking help to kick a habit or an addiction. The problem with the hedonistic lifestyle is the law of diminishing returns and the lack of depth, which often leads to a state of unfulfilled boredom and lethargy; not to mention the missed opportunities.

A word of caution about comparisons with the animal kingdom, because to my knowledge, (which isn't very extensive), both otters and swans mate and pair for life, and I'm sure there are other examples.

Apart from the legal issues surrounding marriage, I think that any long-term commitment, of whatever sexuality, can only be a good thing, even if it fails to work out in due course. I suspect that one of the rarest things I have ever known, concerns a boy and girl who were great friends at about 14 years of age. At 16 they were very much in love, and would wander around hand-in-hand, smiling and laughing as they went. I saw them a couple of years later and they were just the same. Then I played the organ for their wedding in due course, and now, every Sunday, I see them with their teenage offspring at Sunday Mass. Never have I seen two people as solidly in love as they, and it is a rare and joyful thing to behold.

With one notable and glorious exception, when I stumbled across two elderly gentlemen in Brighton, (one of whom was in a wheelchair), I don't think I've seen the same level of commitment in the gay world. However, to prove me wrong by their glorious exception, Cecil and Billy were in their late 70's, had met as stage-hands in London at the age of 16, and had been together the better part of 60 years.

I think that the open hostility and outrage expressed by many churchmen towards the subject of gay marriage is particularly sad, because in any human situation involving love and commitment, there is so much in which to rejoice.

Do they actually prefer the alternative because it reinforces their sense of right, wrong and some sort of sanctified and exclusive morality, which of course, is the very opposite of inclusivity?

Bigotry and prejudice, by their very nature, are belief based rather than evidence based, yet they find a certain resonance among church-folk and especially the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

Interestingly, the Unitarian church is the only denomination never to have erected such barriers or express ill-founded prejudice.

I await the eventual outcome of the debate with interest; assuming that it doesn't result in a complete schism among the ranks of the faithful.

Best,

MM

David Pinnegar

Dear MM

QuoteI forgot to address the legal issues surrounding marriage, which gay marriage would rectify when one partner dies suddenly or where there are matters of unresolved estate etc.  That is probably the biggest benefit, and one which makes fair a currently unfair situation.

I agree entirely and it's in this line that one appreciates the support and mutual reliance that one person has for another within a state of mutual commitment.

I'm not a fan of Cheryl Cole but she has recently summed up the whole issue:
http://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/cheryl-cole-on-the-gay-marriage-debate-i-dont-understand-why-its-even-a-big-deal-7854382.html
Quote"Marriage is far more than a man and a woman, you know. It's a bond for life and whether you're gay or straight or whatever, it makes no difference to being married. What marriage stands for is that you love that person.

"You want to commit yourself to that person forever. All the rights that a marriage gives you, why should the fact that you are attracted to the same sex make that any different? It makes no sense to me. The same relationship, the same beliefs ... It's crazy. I don't understand why it's even a big deal!"

Cheryl. however, answers your assertion:
QuoteFrom what I learn from teenagers and those who work closely with teenagers, I'm inclined to believe that both sexes are equally promiscuous, whatever sexuality may be involved. I suspect that the extent of this is not fully appreciated, and it is really part of the sexual revolution which now seems to be an accepted part of society. I further suspect that those who have never followed the same lifestyle, are probably very much in the minority, but I wouldn't like to put a figure on it.

I would question, I think, the idea that promiscuity is either disordered or destructive, anymore than driving very fast or partying are. It may be senseless enjoyment for the sake of it, but I don't think it does much harm by and large; assuming that people are cautious and informed.

Cheryl divorced her husband on account of his promiscuity with other women. Promiscuity is responsible for significant social breakdown: it is both theft of someone else's present or future significant other . . . as well as an activity which can lead to unwanted children and children raised in single parent households, significantly destructive to stability and often depriving the current generation of the figure and function of a father, together with the understanding of fatherhood.

I mentioned "theft of someone else's future significant other". Many would challenge such a concept: unbounded enjoyment of a temporary state of sexual enjoyment is fine for amoeba in the sea or rabbits in the meadow but for humans for whom sexual bliss and other events are memorised and processed in an intelligent brain, multiplicitous sexual experience is a confusion deeply operating within the psyche.

From the rationalisation from first principles, it might be obvious that if one's circumstances of interaction with someone else are purely on the point of an instant of bodily contact one might progress forward into a sea of circumstances of somebody elses and or those of somebody yet to be created into which one would not voluntarily want to have to swim.

The animal state is unconscious of future and largely past, certainly abstractions of 2nd generation past and possibly viewpoints of other animals and wider consequences of cause and effect. The sort of behaviour that is casually promiscuous is, I would argue, animal at least in such a sense.

In the nature of examining the course of micro decisions that each of us make with respect to actions that result in events and associated circumstances, random sexual contact is a matter of random frustrational activity rather than in any way behaviour in a constancy of direction of Construction Force.

For this reason promiscuity should not be an accepted part of society and the concept of The Construction Force that arises from the first three chapters of Genesis leading us out of the animal state might be usefully appreciated in the teaching of children and to whom it is currently denied in the absolutism of our secular education.

Best wishes

David P

MusingMuso

Dear David,

At the personal level, I'm inclined to agree with almost everything you say, but at an intellectual level, certain things do not quite add up for me.

People are very different, and of course, people also act differently as they mature emotionally. Then again, some people never quite mature to the extent that they are unable to commit themselves to anything other than fleeting encounters with others.

That is neither a gay nor a straight thing, though due to the way men and women, and people of the same sex interrelate, I suspect that there is greater pressure on heterosexual pairings to be more committed at the outset, or at least explore the possibility of an extended liaison to see where it may lead.

However, as someone who has enjoyed lengthy relationships; (the longest about 8 years and the next longest 7 years), I'm not quite sure why some people do not do relationships at all. It leads me to believe that casual encounters are a source of comfort and pleasure to the participants, but one which is based on the mutual adoration of beauty or the fulfilment of fantasies. It may be shallow and it may not be of lasting benefit, but I've known a lot of people in the gay world who want nothing more. Perhaps such encounters are mutually selfish or at perhaps self-obsessed, but I've known many men who marry their jobs and careers, and for whom sexual encounters are nothing more than recreational pleasure, like a game of tennis.

What I do not see are people who are lonely or confused because of it. Instead, I see people who dip a toe in the emotional waters, and then move on. For many, this seems to work well, and allows them to be the masters of their own destinies and circumstances. Some are real high-flyers...often obsessive, highly motivated go-getters, in which challenge and conquest seem to be their principal aims in life.

It gets worse!  I recall an absurd conversation with an academic working in the field of psychiatry. Although I wasn't in the slightest bit interested, he insisted on giving me a detailed and rather colourful lecture on the joys of sado-masochism. As I couldn't escape the social situation, I had little option but to listen patiently; desperately trying to control an urge to burst out laughing. It was a rather dull and intellectual critique of the works of the Marquis de Sade, and I was neither wiser nor better informed when he finally, (mercifully), moved onto his next listener.

You see, I know that there are whole spectra of sexual behaviour which perplex me. I not only don't understand them, I don't want to understand them, and for that reason, I really don't feel in a position to make any judgements one way or the other.

What I do know, is that boys and girls are very different....the old Venus and Mars syndrome. Girls want to be loved and admired, and I'm afraid boys just want sex. In all probability, boys with boys and girls with girls may well be the same; the girls naturally gravitating towards relationships, and the boys just being boys.

Perhaps marriage of any kind is now the exception rather than the rule, and it is for this reason that I respect it, being the monogamous type myself.

I think we should also be aware of national differences in outlook: the cautious and thinking people of the Netherlands, (who nevertheless tolerate the cess-pit of Amsterdam's night-life), and only a couple of countries away, the largely atheist people of the Czech Republic, who just do what comes naturally from the age of 15, without the slightest qualms about Christian morality and quite unhindered by taboos or law.

So in this respect, sexual activity is partly defined by national culture, and there are many Americans who would find European attitudes quite offensive, and Eastern European/Russian attitudes almost satanical.

It's nothing of not complex, and that's why I refrain from judgement; not least because my first relationship lasted 7 years and began when I was 14. If I were to tell the age of my then partner, (who died in a car accident when I was 21), you would probably shuffle uncomfortably, but I would defend it to my last breath as being wholesome, beautiful and a relationship which totally sorted me out at a very young age.

With all respect, I think David, that you display a degree of prejudice, (as we all do), because you have based your response on your own beliefs rather than on evidence; which is not to say that it doesn't contain truth or common sense.

I merely counter with the idea that human sexuality is very complicated, and not always entirely logical or creative. Indeed, it can be extremely corrosive and destructive, as many a divorce lawyer will tell you.

Best,

MM

David Pinnegar

Dear MM

I understand and agree with what you say but the fact is that by reason of people ignoring the instruction book about how not to be an animal, the places where such instruction is commonly given or at least is meant to be, and the instruments that are played there, perhaps I'm not entirely alone in being rather frustrated at doing one's best possible to live a human life in a population that is increasingly animal and from whom the compass of "Construction Force" has been withdrawn. I'm not willing to accept society passively as it is and, if priests will do nothing, suggest that at least organists can do something!

:-)

Best wishes

David P

makemoreandmore

I wonder how much legislation it might take to see such ceremonies in mosques etc?

David Pinnegar

Quote from: thatminidotcom on October 04, 2012, 09:52:13 PM
I wonder how much legislation it might take to see such ceremonies in mosques etc?

:-) Good point!

However, the reality is that Islam stamps so much upon personal freedoms by reason of rule rather than by application of principles to circumstances and consequent adaptation to different situations that it's even possible that current enforced manifestations of Islam could collapse from within, thereby bringing the philosphy of Christianity to the fore.

On another thread I have mentioned Essene texts and the exhortation to understand God as a process of thought adaptable to the living world rather than being limited by the dead hand of old texts, seeking the living word rather than rules deriving from dead words.

Personal freedoms are severely limited for those who comply with middle eastern ideas. It's particularly bad for women which is why we see some of the more adventurous ones divorcing their Muslim husbands and escaping to the west. I am aware of one such lady who divorced seeking both her own freedom and an escape for their son from his father who beat his son on more than one occasion until he bled. However, the divorce was handled admirably and with much greater sensitivity than many western divorces, and still the ex-husband behaves with much kindness to his ex-spouse. But the price of her freedom had been bought in her having given to him the whole of her property and leaving her in penury . . . When Christianity helps those so afflicted within merely a decade or two, the teachings of Jesus will have been proved more helpful to society.

Best wishes

David P

MusingMuso

Dear David,


Islam is no different from Christianity in respect of sexual "laws", which are grounded as much on practical observation and self-protection as they are on faith.

Perhaps the most depressing fact about most religions is their inability to adapt; truth being carved in stone, written in holy books or embraced by ritual. I would suggest that many of the taboos were contrived as such for a very good reason; that of personal and public health. STD's have been around for a very long time, and there is even the suggestion from some sources that AIDS is actually not a new disease. Quite clearly, before medicine and medical knowledge was what it is now, the only acceptable behaviour was that of abstinence or lifelong commitment; anything else potentially fatal and damaging to society. The clerics and believers may not have know why disease happened, but through religion, they were able to control behaviour........an act of love rather than censure, in the absence of anything else.

Even to-day, poverty, a lack of public health provision, illiteracy and a lack of education in many countries, compromises public health and safety in a number of ways, so it is unlikely that religious "rules" will change to accomodate better knowledge, for the simple reason that poverty and deprivation make any such hope futile.

This is why Islam seems so medieval to western minds, for the simple reason that we have moved beyond the scriptural and theological.

Could it be that the secular world has triumphed over religion?

Best,

MM