Dear Me

A letter to my 16-year-old self, inspired by that of Stephen Fry.

Hello, and fondest greetings to you, my old friend. I would ask you how you are - really, I would – but I fear, I know what the answer will be, and I don’t really think you feel like answering.

For, you are not happy - though you would not have others believe it, that is how things are with you. You are confused, unhappy and you feel fundamentally alone; and this is causing you great and unimaginable pain inside. You surround yourself in things – events, objects and great, rambling fantasy worlds to occupy yourself, but all you are doing is deferring the pain until later. For all wounds bring pain, and all pain must be felt at some time. And with life, there is no quick anodyne, and curing your Weltschmerz is not as simple as taking Paracetamol.

You try to vent your frustrations, your confusions and your wonderings by writing poetry, by pouring your heart into arts, of word and sound, of music and letters, but it does not cure your sorrows. And all this because you are afraid. You are afraid to probe the deepest recesses of your personality – you fear what lies at the bottom of your soul, and you feel terror at the merest thought of what you are. Because really, you don’t know who or what you are – you have no firm hopes or ambitions, no dreams or aspirations, and all because of that crippling dread of discovering who you really are. But what is worse, you do not explore your abilities, your reasonings, your limitations or your desires – and at the very age at which you should be doing this! You are stunting your own development, and deliberately so.

-- And why? --

Really, you fear difference – not how most people fear it, by hating those who are different, but by fearing that you, yourself are different. That you lie outside those well-trodden social norms; that you flout that which is considered generally acceptable, normal or desirable.

You fear that you are talented – that you possess talent to a degree that is not wholly average, that your abilities are in any way remarkable, and that you possess any intellectual quality which distinguishes you from the boring, grey majority. Yet, you know that you are, that you do possess something valuable – and deep down, you really do want to develop it. But your fears hold you back. You write music, yes, but you cannot be proud of it, somehow. You do not see yourself as a musician, or an artist. You convince yourself that these will be hobbies, that they will occupy only a portion of your time. At university, you will study English or German – no, it will be law. Will it? You try to pour yourself into things you know you do not find interesting. And your school-work suffers because of this. You hate Chemistry, and you choose it anyway. Yet, the call of music is too strong, and you cannot escape it – though that is not for want of trying, for you really try earnestly to escape your destiny, your God-ordained path. And your failure dismays and injures you.

You are deeply confused and bewildered by your sexual desires. You find girls attractive, certainly, but you find boys alluring, breath-pilfering and utterly stupefying – which is not normal for a boy, so you think. You embrace your desires for girls, but you fear and even hate your desires for boys. You hate that you have crushes on boys, and you hate how you always seem to fancy them most of the time, with girls forming about 10% of your infatuations. You have grown up believing that this is odd, that it is unfathomable, and that it is socially anathema. Worse yet, you are uncertain as to whether this makes you gay or bisexual – those black, disdainful words! So, you tell yourself – ‘I am not weird – I’m straight! I’m as straight as every other boy in my class!’ But denying yourself the lion’s share of your infatuations and loves is not easy, is it? It does not make you feel better, and it does not help you to cope with your turbulent voyage through adolescence. You know how beautiful a thing love is, and most of the time, you bury it under a great mound of distractions and deceptions. You convince yourself that you merely admire those boys you think you find ‘attractive’ – every other boy feels that great heart-rending squeeze of his soul at the sight of one of his male classmates! There is nothing wrong with finding yourself day-dreaming about a boy you cannot, try as you might, put out of your mind. You desperately cling to these defence mechanisms, in the hope that you can will yourself into normality – that your feelings for various boys you know will disappear, and that you’ll be left with only your crushes on girls.

Oh, do stop deluding and misleading yourself, Tom! These truths which you build around yourself mask that which you fundamentally know is the real truth. You know that you’re not completely heterosexual – no matter how you may tell yourself otherwise, you know that you’re bisexual, and that (oh, horror of all horrors!!) you lean towards the homosexual, in fact, quite significantly so.

Why can you not see that being different is no curse? Rather than trying to wish yourself into changing, hoping that somehow, this self-denial and suppression will in some wise affect your fundamental nature, you ought to embrace your personality. Every trait which you possess is a gift from God, in whom your faith has so recently been awoken. Those tears you shed because of how hopelessly dreadful you see yourself as being are wholly and completely unnecessary! Your anguish, your suffering and your loneliness – your confusion, misery and hopelessness are needless! No convention is worth complying with purely for its own sake, or for the sake of acceptability, or the attaining of that elusive state of ‘normality’ – whatever that may be. Especially if one’s true nature is insulted and dehumanised by it.

You are a kind, warm and generous person – you are good, moral and upright – you are valuable, you are unique and everything that you are is wholly, completely and totally right! And normal! It is a good thing to be talented. Your sexual orientation is normal – as is every type of human sexuality.

You will proceed to question many of society’s norms. I won’t give too much away (because you must come to these conclusions yourself), but in seven years’ time, you will be completely different. Unrecognisable. You will have many, many friends (including several close ones), you will possess a lively and devoted faith (yes, you remain Christian, though not Roman Catholic), and you will learn to be proud of who you are.

I doubt we shall ever meet, but know that you are always in my thoughts – scarcely a day goes by when I do not think of you. For you are what I once was. And I know that you think of me sometimes – you wonder at who I am, and you long to know me. You will, and you can. Look inside yourself, for there is much treasure inside your heart which is hidden. Discover that which you already know!

Blasphemy! Blasphemy!

It’s got to the stage where I’ve become overwhelmed by the staggeringly bewilderingly ridiculous decisions being made by the Irish Government almost on a daily basis. The latest in a barrage of draconian laws is the rather infamous ‘blasphemy’ clause addition to the Defamation Bill 2006.

Basically, this addition officially criminalises the act of blasphemy (‘a person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence), which is defined in Subsection 2 of the new clause:

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if— (a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

This is a supposed resolution of a section to be found in the Irish Constitution, stating that the publication of blasphemous matter ‘is an offence which should be punishable in accordance with law’.

This has provoked almost unparalleled controversy in almost every vessel of public opinion in existence – newspapers, magazines, television, radio, online forums, blogs, &c – though these protests seem to have fallen on deaf ears. Despite the fact that the majority of the Irish public is seemingly virtually unanimously opposed to this measure, it was passed nevertheless, and is now part of Irish statute. In other words, blasphemy is now a punishable offence.

This bill is by no means prescriptive, and seems to me to be rather vague – in fact, it explains very little at all, and has left the majority of Irish people rather confused indeed. The first major concern of mine is this: what exactly constitutes a blasphemous statement? Yes, it is defined as being something which is insulting to any official religious doctrine – but no further definition is offered.

What, therefore, constitutes blasphemy? Is it restricted only to malicious statements or other attempts at ridicule, or does it adopt a broader definition? Therefore, if one religion openly opposes a stance or dogma of another, does that constitute blasphemy?

If that is true, then a number of religions are currently guilty of blasphemy. The Roman Catholic Church (which is, in reality, still unofficially protected by the State) is guilty of blasphemy by declaring Anglican orders to be ‘null and void’. The Clergy is central to the Church of Ireland, and I, as a member of that church, feel insulted by that statement. Is the RC Church, therefore, liable to be prosecuted under the new Blasphemy clause?

The Church of Ireland has a similar set of slights in its official documents. The Thirty-Nine Articles, found at the back of the Book of Common Prayer, makes a number of refutations of Roman Catholic doctrines, such as Purgatory, which is declared to be ‘a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture; but rather repugnant to the word of God’. I, personally, as an Anglican, don’t believe in Purgatory – however, it is central to Roman Catholic theology. Therefore, is the Church of Ireland guilty of blasphemous libel, and is the Primate (The Most Rev’d Alan Harper) liable to be fined €25,000? Similarly, the doctrine of Purgatory itself is a contradiction of that which is held sacred by almost every Reformed denomination. Will the RC Church, therefore, be fined for this contradiction?

Perhaps I took the previous example a little too far. I cannot imagine the State fining a Church for blasphemy – but it is not expressly ruled out by the amendment. True, blasphemy only applies if the statement was intended to cause outrage – but in most of these cases, the original authors (who are now long-dead) definitely intended to do just that.

Does religious debate come under the definition of blasphemy? For example, if I were to issue a statement in a public forum which attempts to denounce the RC practice of prayer to saints (to take an example), would I be liable for a fine under the Blasphemy clause? Such a statement would probably cause offence to Roman Catholics – therefore, causing outrage among a substantial number of that religion’s adherents – and is therefore blasphemy. Does that mean, therefore, that we are no longer legally permitted to engage in religious debate? Is preaching therefore outlawed? Is it, therefore, illegal to say anything beyond ‘I disagree with this statement\doctrine\practice – however, I am not permitted to state my reasons due to legal constraints’?!

If so, this is a major blow to our right to freedom of speech. Previously, we have been free to discuss religious matters – privately and publicly. Now, however, that right is in danger. Presumably, this bill was intended to soothe the palpitating hearts of religious believers all over Ireland. I, however, as a Christian, am deeply disturbed by it.

I respect people’s right to possess their own beliefs, and I think it is healthy for people to engage in discussion of their respective faiths. This promotes growth not only in society, but within ourselves – discussing one’s faith helps to develop one’s beliefs, and strengthens that same faith, be that Christianity (in its multiplicity of denominations), Judaism, Agnosticism, Atheism, &c. If nobody is permitted to publicly contradict anything held sacred by any religion whatsoever, then the liveliness of religious discourse is lost to us, and we are deprived of a fundamental right – that to Free Speech.

Minister Ahern had the opportunity to remove the originating clause in the Constitution by means of referendum (which would undoubtedly have been passed) - however, he instead embarked on a pseudo-moralistic crusade which has, effectively, launched a process of plunging Ireland back into the woefully dark times of the mid-twentieth century, when Church and State were still fundamentally intertwined. No Christian I know wants that state of affairs to return – let us keep campaigning to the Minister, even if he fails to listen, so that we may prevent that reality. Let us fight for our right to Free Speech!

Gay Marriage and Equality

'All men are equal - to varying degrees...'

I’ve long kept my peace about the issue of gay marriage, simply because of my tendency to avoid confrontation. Recently, however, various personages have produced arguments in the public arena which are so baseless and ill-conceived that one wonders what fetid, squelching recesses of the mind these arguments were vomited from. I feel very strongly about this issue – not simply as a bisexual man (for nothing can be considered logically from a personal feeling only, though this is important), but as a Christian, a member of society, and as a human being.

Gay marriage has been a point of extreme contention in Ireland recently, as a result of the Civil Partnership Bill which was drafted in 2008, which, obviously, aims to grant same-sex couples the right to a Civil Partnership. This grants such couples the right to register their relationship\partnership legally, and allows them some of the legal rights to which heterosexual couples have been entitled for generations. It gives the people in such partnerships rights to inheritance, places them in a more favourable situation with regard to tax, and moreover, allows their love to be recognised officially.

This is indisputably a milestone not only in the history of Gay Rights, but also in the history of Western society (of which Ireland is part). Certainly, it is greatly preferable to the previous state of affairs, which placed same-sex couples in a dreadful position indeed, with no rights as a couple, save for the rights granted to each of us as a person (and, one could argue, even these were not fully applied to LGB people).

This, some argue (including Brenda Power, a columnist with the Sunday Times), should suffice – and that asking for more is unappreciative, it is insolence. Effectively, this considers LGB people as spoilt children who fail to appreciate what they’re given – presumably, we’re still recovering from the unimaginable high of being allowed to publicly engage in same-sex relationships sixteen years ago. This has made us ungrateful, it has spoilt us, and we ought to be thankful for what we have received.

I have come to the conclusion recently that this bill was drafted not out of an overwhelming desire to grant equality to a group of people who had formerly been denied such equal standing - but rather, out of a need to grant some sort of appeasement. Effectively, this bill is a stop-gap measure to silence the nagging of various LGB equality groups such as GLEN (Gay and Lesbian Equality Network). Yes, it grants rights to same-sex couples and that is undoubtedly and incontestably welcome – however, it has been granted decidedly grudgingly, and moreover, it may even serve to reinforce the ‘those-weird-people’ attitude which is so lamentably prevalent.

Is it therefore any wonder that the majority of the gay community in Ireland have received the bill with such disfavour? Given the attitude which is being so vocally espoused by Brenda Power and her ilk (namely, that we should count our blessings for having received any equality at all), it is unsurprising.

There are two main points of contention which the gay community have with this bill. The first is that it is not marriage, and this is definitely the case. It is Civil Partnership, which is a step below marriage – it is unashamedly unequal to marriage, and no attempt has been made to cloak this in any way. True, it is a step above no equality at all – but how are we expected to be content with partial equality? It is amazing that, on the threshold of the twenty-first century’s second decade, such an attitude can be so staggeringly prevalent. Moreover, in a society and in a country that prides itself on the application of Human Rights, it is quite frankly astonishing that such a half-step is so welcomed – and acknowledged as somehow being the ultimate step.

The second point is that it does not grant the right to adopt. That is true, but not only does it not grant the right to adopt, it does not even grant the merest possibility of even being considered in the adoption process. Perhaps I am blinded by my own condition, but I fail to see any reason why two balanced people in a loving, committed relationship cannot provide a suitable home for a child simply because of the sexual nature of their relationship – namely, that their genders are the same. This is a result of this ridiculous notion of gender-roles which has still grasped the minds of the general populace. In other words, all women are disposed in such-and-such a manner and approach things in such-and-such a way, and all men are similarly disposed in such-and-such a manner and therefore approach things in such-and-such a way. This is an utter fallacy, and has been demonstrated as such by the most recent gender studies. As people are all unique and different, not all men are the same, and not all women are the same. Some men approach things in a more traditionally ‘feminine’ way (emotionally and intuitively) and others approach things in a more conventionally ‘masculine’ way (systematically and logically). The same is true of women. The parties of gay couples can, therefore, not be considered as inherently too similar to one another to raise children properly.

Here, Miss Power proposes the argument that placing children in same-sex households makes them ‘different’ because their adoptive parents are similarly ‘different’. Supposedly, gay couples are inherently ‘different’ and do not fit into society – presumably, as a result of their sexual orientation (which point she is reluctant to draw to its logical conclusion). One wonders here whether she has considered that the reason why LGBT people don’t fit into society is precisely because that very same society refuses to allow them to fit in! And it is utterly intolerable for society to deny LGB people rights on the basis of a truth that they themselves serve as originators to! And to argue a case based on this self-sustaining pseudo-fact is unspeakably, insidiously vacuous!

Naturally, these two things have been picked up on by the gay community, and have caused considerable upset, anger and outrage. To be considered strange because of one’s orientation and unfit to love and nurture children because of that same ‘difference’ is ridiculous. Miss Power’s argument that this whole business is not about the ‘rights of gays’, but rather about the protection of children is baseless. There is no inherent reason that, given a chance by society, a same-sex couple cannot provide a loving home for a child, in which his or her cognitive and emotional development is stimulated in the proper way, in a like manner to how the best of opposite-sex couples do this. It is the ultimate in ignorance to suggest that, by virtue of the gender-disposition of same-sex couples, this is impossible.

However, the main point I intended to discuss here was marriage – adoption of children is an entirely different argument. What LGB people are seeking is the right to marry. Yes, as Miss Power says, Civil Partnership does grant the right to nominate next-of-kin, and all the rest of that, but that isn’t the fundamental point of marriage. That point and purpose is to make a declaration of eternal, undying love for one’s partner – a gesture of commitment, fidelity and affection which is the most beautiful symbol ever devised. Civil Partnership is not that – it is recognition of what already exists. This legislative Eureka-moment may be wonderful in a legal sense, but for a hopeless romantic like me, it lacks the beauty and the passion of marriage, which is a selfless act of love. To suggest that LGB people are somehow incapable of that, undeserving of it, or otherwise unworthy of it is the greatest act of bigotry imaginable. For Brenda Power and her like to tell us that our supposed lifestyle-choice is to blame for the inequality we suffer is unconscionable (how can a straight person make pronouncements on the disposition of a lesbian, gay or bisexual person).

And for us - not just in the gay community, but all of us as society members, whether straight, gay, bisexual, lesbian or transgender – to accept these attitudes is not right. We need to make a stand as human beings, we need to tell these official types, these people in the media and other vessels of public opinion that we will not stand to see those with whom we share our fundamental humanity disadvantaged and discriminated against because of a component of that humanity. Whether we share our sexuality or our religion is irrelevant – we are all human. And do not all humans deserve the right to be given an equal standing – the same opportunities and the same rights? To say otherwise is to prove right the old cliché – that some are created more equal than others.

Perhaps I should end this as I begun it, with a quote. Sir Winston Churchill once said the following: ‘I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.’ One wonders whether pigs discriminate on the basis of gender or sexuality – however, I think the answer can be guessed rather readily.

Rules for graces...

Well, now. It appears that this is my first post on this new blog of mine. Why a second blog, you might ask yourself, when I already have a LiveJournal. You see, LiveJournal posts have become (for me) both formulaic (memes, questionnaires, &c) and much rarer of late. To the extent that I'm never sure what to write. Some people (whom I won't name) just don't understand why I would want to post some of the stuff I want to post there - and even if they did, they probably wouldn't like it.

So, a new start - thus, a new blog host was needed. Hence the blogger account.

Firstly, I'd better explain the title. As a harpsichord player, I love music of the 17th and 18th Centuries. Purcell's Eight Suites were published in a volume entitled 'A Choice Collection of Lessons for the Harpsichord or Spinnett' - a great title for a blog (for a baroque not like me), especially considering the alternate musical meaning of the word 'Lesson' (it's the English term for what the French called a 'Suite'). So yeah.

The themes of the posts on this may assume themselves into a number of categories, chiefly:

• Composition, especially major works and performances thereof
• Anything to do with performance, especially Harpsichord recitals.
• My love life - trying to find a boyfriend (or girlfriend) - it's not easy, considering all most people want is a quick-fix, if you get my meaning.
• Religion - I'm a committed Christian (Anglican/Church of Ireland), and my faith permeates into a lot of my life.
• Philosophical rantings - discussions on life, the universe and everything. And toast, of course.
  

So yes, that's what to expect (the list isn't, of course, exhaustive, at five points - I'm a lot more interesting than to limit my whole life to five topics =P). But yeah, that's essentially the why and the wherefore of this blogging venture. A collection of lessons - those learnt by me, that is. Questioning, despairing, rejoicing - no topic too deep (or, indeed, too mundane).

Bis zum nächsten Mal!
~Tom