Fun with Romans
I should, to keep the Record straight, here admit that the timestamp of this post was originally 5:20AM last night. Due to my unwillingness to plonk this post down without using cut-tags, and LiveJournal's apparent unwillingness to downgrade the post's privacy level, I am simply re-posting in its entirety.
So I was looking at a post on a neighboring journal regarding gay marriage, in specific the legal ramifications of "civil union" vs. "marriage" language. I began to respond, and found that as I have been forced, forced I tell you to think about this and related issues on ridiculously regular occasion recently, the post quickly exceeded civil comment length.
As such, time for a thought experiment. Let's assume for a moment, as the posited and monolithic Republican Evangelical Christian Right universally does, that homosexuality is in opposition to natural law, and furthermore that the authority of scripture is absolute and as literal as can be arranged (I'm going to ignore Leviticus. If anyone wants to cite Leviticus in opposition to homosexuality, they'd better be willing to see me stone them, and me, and nearly everyone I know.) The entire intersection of the New Testament and homosexuality can be found in Romans 1, in which we find:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrigheousness... Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another..."
Back to our thought experiment, as good little theoretical Republican Evangelical Christian Right persons (I will hence abbreviate to GLTRECRPs) it is theoretically of importance to us to take the literal meaning of the scripture. As we see, however, the literal meaning of the scripture is not "homosexuality constitutes a grievous assault on your culture, and a spreading disease which must be fought back at every turn lest ye all be dragged bodily into the Pit." Even within Romans, homosexuality is a presenting symptom, not a root cause.
Let's turn to the issue of marriage for a moment, that being what is in theory under assault by the gay horde. It does not take a terribly careful observer to note that the institution of marriage is in a bad way. I forget exact divorce statistics, but I don't need to look them up to tell you that given the presupposition that marriage is (put on your GLTRECRP hat again) an absolutely sacrosanct bond between two persons unto the death of at least one party, they are completely psychotic. The sanctity of marriage is indeed under attack, but it is primarily under such attack through the actions of heterosexuals, who are running around marrying and divorcing one another like drunken rabbits with prosopagnosia.
In order to apply Romans to the divorce problem, we need to draw the distinction between two Greek words for Love, both of which are, sadly, most often translated Love. When we say Love in English, we most readily associate with the Greek term Eros, from which the word erotic springs. Eros is the love of one specific person, usually somewhat possessive in nature: eros desires to own and to be owned, and encompasses sexuality. The other Love in question is Agape, sometimes translated Charity, though the modern associations in English are inappropriately impersonal. Agape is a deep sense of brotherhood, in many ways a turning outward of the unswerving "love" we have for ourselves. Not nearly so jealous as Eros, Agape was one of St. Paul's favorite words, as well as the name of the earliest Christian sacrament, the proto-communion "love feast." (No. Agape, not Eros. Head. Gutter. Git.) For those who do Eastern mysticism, the distinction between Agape and Eros is perfectly described by the reflected pair of the sixth and second chakras.
Now let's apply Romans. Is is evident that the persons getting married are expecting something out of marriage that, once married, they almost universally find lacking. What, then, are they expecting? For answers, listen to what they (we, you) are listening to. We are bombarded with love songs in which the entire world shrinks down to be held in the outstretched hand of that one woman, one man, we are constantly shown sexy sexiness and informed that if we are not actively copulating with someone we find intensely attractive, there's probably something wrong with us: in short, we have a significant cult of Eros going on. (Fun etymology game: Eros is the same god as Cupid, which is the same root as Cupiditas, which in turn is one of St. Augustine's favorite words to describe his early, moronic period of sexual hunger, which lasted until his mid-thirties or so, giving me about ten more years. Ugh.) In this desire to possess and be possessed by this theoretical perfect person, we might imagine some emphasis on marriage as a reflection of Agape, God's love, and the love that builds and sustains living communities, is lost in the shuffle. And in Pauline theology, which as GLTRECRPs we will recall is our sole source for condemnation of homosexuality, it's Agape or bust. In forgetting the place of Agape in marriage, we open ourselves to the jealousies and follies of the enthroned Eros, who in attempting to worship the beloved rather than the love between the couple pushes Agape still further out of the picture. As the little Agape-bots that humans are, we don't run on that fuel, and quickly find ourselves fed up with the new spouse. Divorce ensues.
I think it is a necessary conclusion that under our own GLTRECRP formulae, the best way to combat even this assault on marriage from without is to start within, and make a conscious effort to shift our attention from the spouse alone to the sacred bond between partners that is a reflection of God's love. (In specific, if you go for allegorical interpretations of the Song of Solomon, of Christ's love for the Church.) To acknowledge the importance of our marriages to our social structure, and to care enough about that community to truly commit to a spouse, and having committed, to thus choose not to do anything so stupid as to make the relationship unworkable. In short, and to recall Romans directly, to liberate marriage from its creaturely captivity to its Creator. Within our thought experiment, we are in a mystical world, in which purity is a real concern and has real effects; if there is a gay tide threatening to overflow the dyke and flood the Netherlands of marriage (Whoa. I'm tired.) then the best response is probably to put your house in order, or at least the upper room, assuming the ground floor to be underwater.
In response to the inevitable (and likely unasked) question of where the author stands on the precise content of this thought experiment, I will simply state that I am deeply conflicted, and in the end uncertain. The if/then I'm very comfortable with, but those who know me well will understand my deep attraction to both sides of the if. Apologies to fanatics on all sides; remember this next time you don't have a definite answer to something I believe passionately.