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
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