Re the ongoing strife in the Episcopal Church

Although I have made this post in another blog which is censored by somebody, there does not seem to be content that ought to be considered censor-able. Except, of course, by those with strongly differing opinions; but, blogs are for expressing opinions and data. So here is my post:

The ongoing strife in the Episcopal Church regarding election of both a woman to be a bishop and two gays to also be bishops, reflects a Church concern about sexuality, a concern beyond that of merely performing weddings.

Sexuality is clearly a topic filled with intense opinions and control issues, and thus a tough topic to address, including by the Church; and perhaps especially so. How the married people managed to get their mates and formalize the relationships, is probably considered a complex of worthiness and luck along with some less noble doings, somehow ending up with them having a spouse, and others not having a spouse, or at least not the one they have. Competition, rivalry, undercutting, all might have happened, all best not brought to light. Better to address any such issues with dogma, to avoid bringing up uncomfortable facts. Plus, marriage relationships, dating relationships, can continue to have difficulties and sometimes end up in divorce. or other means for ending an excessively uncomfortable relationship that had been officially recognized by the authorities.

Consider that if the Church were to take on a strongly supportive role in enabling male-female relationships of all kinds and ages, without exercise of dogma or demand for preventing sexuality until after sanctioned marriage, accepting human needs and rejecting the primeval male urge to destroy the other males so as to reproduce by all the females, and instead accept love and nurture as basic to all human relationships including courtship, romance and marriage. In other words, actively pair up males and females together, even in preschool and beyond into senior-hood. Let the male-female interactions thusly enabled, to function as learning experiences for all concerned. And leaving out no one, even those who, like me, are socially inept to some extent, although strive to participate best they can, and desire paired relationships with those of the opposite gender. Given these default pairings, the people are then free to switch partners whenever desired. If someone gets left out at times, the Church would arbitrarily assign a new partner of the opposite gender, with whom to have at least a bit of interaction and learning supportive experiences continuing as part of daily life. The church would teach loving nurturing mutually supportive ways of interacting among these male-female pairings, along with, if necessary, censoring abusive, controlling interactions if and when they temporarily occur.

The outcome of this is suggested to be a people who are quite comfortable in male-female relationships, and not forced into a particular long term relationship by circumstances, enabling choices by both male and female as to whom to interact with. When reproduction becomes involved, then new long term commitments would become fostered by the Church such as through a more solidly based marriage ceremony.

The reason that this is not being done, at least by most Christian churches, is probably rooted in the long term history of monks who found survival in the monasteries, refuge after being chased away by the peer males who were aggressive so as to have all the women to themselves. Such reproductively cast out males are not a good model for helping all people to be continually in male-female relationships throughout life, nor would be the aggressive males supportive of such a notion; the road back to normality could be a difficult one; but understanding the overall picture hopefully could interact so as to enable male-female interactions for all concerned, including for themselves.

And thus the present conflicts in the Church over sexuality. And workable suggestions for addressing the real needs.