When they enjoy all of the privileges formally accorded to marriage, why do they want to redefine marriage: they want to remove any express mention of marriage as being between a man and a woman, but allow the definition to be so loose as to remove any mention of it requiring the consenting parties to be of opposite gender.

But this opens the possibility for two further steps of destruction:

First, since there is no requirement for marriage to be between a man and a woman (ie one of each), then it would not only allow two men or two women to be “married”, but it could lead to include any number of men/women to “marry”; worse still hitherto banned relationships (eg a person could marry his horse!) would be encompassed.

The second step is that “marriage under God” (and therefore affirmed by church as God’s holy people) would inevitably be challenged as “not being in accordance with law”. There is the first glimmer of this is in the Coalition Government pressing for church buildings to be allowed for civil partnerships ceremonies.

We are obliged to the author of the following quote, which we have found on website, http://james-a-watkins.hubpages.com.

This adequately encompasses our feelings and fears.  

“TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE

Is traditional marriage unfair to all of these other groups who want to dismantle it?  A group of social liberal activists ran a full-page statement in the New York Times in 2006 titled “Beyond Gay Marriage.”  Part of that statement said this: “Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. While we honor those for whom marriage is the most meaningful personal–for some, also a deeply spiritual–choice, we believe that many other kinds of kinship relationships, households, and families must also be accorded recognition.”  The stated goal of these prominent gay activists is no longer merely the freedom to live their lives as they want. Rather, it is to force you, your family, and the state to recognize and respect their myriad choices. The result of meeting these demands will be a culture, a legal system, and a government that considers a monogamous, exclusive, permanent sexual relationship of child-bearing and child-rearing nothing more than one among many lifestyle choices. It leaves the claim that marriage is normative for the flourishing of spouses, children, and society–not to mention any attempt to enshrine in law this unique human good–would be considered bigotry. In other words, marriage as a social institution would be destroyed. “

You may find it instructive to visit James’ Hub (see BlogRoll in RH column) to discover more about the various “poly-aberrations” that exist in the minds and lives of others!

How many of you women out there would agree with that statement? Even if you just know it in your heart but are nervous to express it through fear of rejection by the man in your life – or by all men in general?

Do you believe that women feel differently to men about sex? Does the man in your life realise this? Or does he expect you to evince the same desire as he?

It is generally true for a man that a continual high dose of testosterone keeps his interest in intercourse, and his quest to find it, on the boil. That’s why, when it comes to it, he’s always ready. On the other hand a woman doesn’t have such high levels of testosterone but the female hormone oestrogen. This doesn’t “drive” her towards the sex act to the same extent. In fact what it drives her to is love.

Why don’t women tell the truth when it comes to discussing sex with men? They always revert to pretending they are as “up for it” to the same degree and frequency as men, when the reality is far from it. One woman shared with us that she “drops into bed, exhausted, at the end of the day, then out comes the hand…” But that’s only the beginning of the problem…!

The very words used to describe sex make this clear: the woman “gives” herself to the man and he “takes”. She is submitting to him – after all, he is the initiator (is supposed to be) while she is a responder. Deep within her psyche, whether she is consciously aware of it or not,  is a drive to please. So she is therefore vulnerable in this whole exchange between the sexes.   It is this fact that men prey on – they manipulate it for their satisfaction, and in this quest to please, she fails to speak her truth for fear of rejection or abandonment.   But he hasn’t understood where she is emotionally, or physically. He needs to be sensitive to these needs rather than only intent on satisfying his craving for orgasm, in the mistaken belief that this is all she needs as well. It would appear in certain cases that he doesn’t approach her as a person, but as a sex object (see our post “Objectifying”). Man cannot be the verdict on woman.

Men want sex: women want love.

But how many women get their “want” acknowledged let alone satisfied?

We feel there is a conspiracy of silence about this topic. It would appear that women are reluctant to be open and honest on this very sensitive issue, and can consequently suffer enormous amounts of emotional distress.

What do you think? Should women be more honest and admit to their needs? Or is it right in this day and age to remain silent, lie back and “think of England”?

Or have a headache?

For a full understanding of the contents of this book and Fr Ron’s responses you will need to visit Fr Ron’s website, (www.ronrolheiser.com), but here is a brief summary of what was said:

In Bell’s view “Sex inside its proper containers, unconditional commitment, respect, love, is designed to counter the brokenness of our lives and the fragmentation of the world”. Fr Ron’s view is that “Sex outside of its proper containers… isn’t bringing more joy into our lives but is leaving us more fragmented and lonely”.

But neither commentator mentions that in God’s view sex is solely to be experienced within a marriage between one man and one woman in a lifelong commitment made before God. In His view any other sexual encounter is either fornication or adultery, both of which are anathema to Him, and roundly condemned throughout scripture.

We have felt led to send the following reply to Fr Ron.

Let us first say that we have not read Rob Bell’s book, so we cannot comment on that author’s writing, but we are replying to the inferences in Fr Ronald’s column drawn from the quotes that he includes. A glaring example of our concern about Bell’s understanding, as it would appear from the article, is that he neglects to include marriage in his “containers of unconditional commitment, respect, love”. Surely, as a Christian writer this should be his priority in writing about sexual encounters?

Bell writes: “Our world thinks it understands sex. It doesn’t”. As we have clearly said in our book “Where are all the Men?” the world equates sex with coitus: but the reality is that “sex” is a 24/7 relationship, not just a passing encounter. And if we read the rest of Fr Ronald’s article with this in mind, it might begin to make sense.

However, this is our perspective: “Because of our relationship with God we believe there is a far deeper intimacy than simply that of the joining of two bodies. The physical aspect of marriage is generally misunderstood, taken to mean only the sex act. But more realistically it is a 24/7 involvement with each other. Sadly, nowadays intimacy just means “sex” since these terms are mostly considered synonymous; sex is only understood in terms of copulation. Intimacy is not an act, but a state of being in which a couple gradually share more and more of themselves. It is about growing together in knowledge, trust and respect, and love whereby we can disclose our innermost thoughts, feelings, and aspirations. So long as we are in a relationship with God, this sharing will be in an atmosphere of safety, but not if we are under any form of Adamic influence. Our relationship with God should also be one of intimacy and on a 24/7 basis. In this there is a maturity for both the husband and wife. Intimacy means a joining of two human souls and that joining involves two spiritual beings, since we are essentially spiritual; we are spiritual beings on a human journey. This growing together is one of increased understanding of self and other, which ultimately should bring us into closer relationship with God”.

We are disturbed by the inference in the article (and we presume in Bell’s book) that sex “is designed to counter the brokenness of our lives and the fragmentation of our world”. We believe that only Christ can heal this brokenness, not finite humans in their limitations.

We have written elsewhere that we believe a man (or woman, for that matter) in isolation cannot write a book about sex, since it involves both a man and a woman. It appears to us that this may be the reason for the shortcomings of understanding revealed here.