mls@mhuxu.UUCP (Michael Siemon) (06/01/89)
Mr. Hedrick examines a rather-too-simple "argument from love" and comments: + An adulterous relationship may have moments of + self-giving love, in which God's love shows forth. Yet in the long + run the relationship is damaging, and will cause great harm... + + Note the "when expressed inappropriately". It is not the love + which is wrong... + ... It could be a self-defeating sort of expression, that + ultimately turns back on the love that started it. I hope it is clear that this argument works both ways, as indeed Mr. Hedrick suggests in his use of the adultery example; but I want to twist it just a bit tighter with the example of marriage itself. We all know that even the best of marriages is sometimes strained and subject to "self-defeating sort[s] of expression" -- a result I tend to assume derives from our limited human condition compounded by the fallen state we find hard to leave even after we are granted grace. And all too many marriages are swamped by these effects, they are built on illusions and only fitfully, if at all, allow God's love to show forth. Yet for all that, we encourage -- we practically force -- heterosexual couples into marriage, despite often having a nearly certain sense that they will self-destruct rather than grow in God's grace. And there is a point to this: with faith founded on hope we look to God to bless what must always be a rather iffy proposition at the start. Faith, hope and love: these three are the basis of marriage. The "sacrament" of marriage (I quote to suggest that Protestants may want to read that symbolically) is, like other sacraments, a present reality that points beyond itself in hope and faith. Not to argue the point, I want to state my problem with all of this. If the church were deeply suspicious of ALL marriage, and placed many barriers in the way of blessing ANY union -- say a long catecheumenate or the sort of invasive examination given candidates for ordination -- I would be somewhat more willing to accept the TOTAL suspicion directed at homosexual union. In some ways, the early church did this, with its abhorence of all sex and glorification of virginity. But the modern church is QUITE different. Some suburban churches seem to be little more than social clubs, with their principal festive liturgies being weddings emerging from their "youth" clubs. But even discounting such aberrations, I repeat that our churches seem to treat ANY heterosexual couple save only those who are obviously entering the marriage falsely (i.e., those very few cases where an impediment bars marriage) as being POTENTIAL vehicles for this grace of union. I think it is hypocritical to deny such potential to homosexual union without VERY good reason. -- Michael L. Siemon "O stand, stand at the window contracted to AT&T Bell Laboratories As the tears scald and start; att!mhuxu!mls You shall love your crooked neighbor standard disclaimer With your crooked heart."