Sometimes people of different opinions seem at cross
purposes. We talk past each other. And we won’t get anywhere good that way. So
sometimes I work on words, and wording, in the hope that it may help.
Yesterday I came across a short piece at United Families
International, by Erin Weist, talking about the phrase “Love wins.” It’s used
by the LGBTQ… lobby to attack defenders of marriage and family. It’s a good
example of talking past each other.
Who’s against love? No one is saying LGBT people shouldn’t
be loved, or shouldn’t love. As Weist says, “Who doesn’t support loving each
other? But I suggest these statements
are straw man arguments, meant to invoke intense passion for the subject
without actually addressing the subject at all.”
It's hard to know the motivation of everyone who uses the
phrase. Some are probably doing it purposely to manipulate the argument—to demonize
anyone who disagrees with them. Some are those who have fallen for the manipulation
and then repeat it without thinking it through.
 |
| We celebrated a lot of real love that day, at daughter Social Sphere's wedding |
That second group might be someone we can eventually
communicate with, if we get a chance to have an actual dialogue.
Weist offers some historical perspective on the word love:
First, love comes in many forms. Men can form bonds with each other, women
love friends in their social groups, children love each other, adults love
children and find themselves concerned with their well-being because of that
love. Ancient Greeks believed in at
least 8 different types of love, some of them among friends and having nothing
to do with a marriage relationship. Each
of these forms of love is different based on the particular relationship. Traditional marriage supporters generally
believe in many different forms of love–but especially that physical love is
one particular kind meant to be kept between 2 opposite genders and ONLY in a
marriage relationship. This doesn’t deny
selfless love or familial love that we feel for others around us.
I got curious and looked up what those 8 Greek words for love
are, and how their meanings differ:
·
Eros—erotic
love, sexual passion or desire
·
Philia—friendship
affection, between equals
·
Storge—familial
affection, no sexual attraction
·
Ludus—playful
affection, flirtation, infatuation
·
Mania—obsessive
love, eros or ludus unbalanced and desperate
·
Pragma—enduring
love, matured love, as with long married couples
·
Philautia—self
love in its healthiest form (not narcissism), caring for self
·
Agape—unselfish,
unconditional love, altruistic love
Only a few of these relate to potential sexual relations.
Several are clearly free of that connotation. But when the LGBT lobby talks
about sexual relations, they frequently use the word love, as though that is
what sex always is. But it isn’t.
If sex always meant love, then we would consider rape a
beautiful offering of connection between two people—but it isn’t. Nor is incest, child
molestation—or any molestation. Nor is prostitution or any form of sex
trafficking.
We’d be hard put to agree that one-night stands or orgies
are about people caring deeply for one another in any way that could be
described as actual love. Promiscuity is selfish and carnal; it has nothing to
do with love.
A better word would be lascivious.
It means wanton, lustful, lewd, arousing sexual desire without love. It’s a
good, Biblical word that we seem to under-use in our modern society.
I have a long-time friend (Happy Birthday, Friend!) who has
been married coming up on 40 years soon. I remember when they met and started
dating. It was a blind date, to a dance. She was fighting a cold, and didn’t
think she’d been that impressive on their first date. But on his part, it was
practically love at first sight. He went home and told his parents, “I’m in lust.” And to their shocked expressions
he replied, “I only just met her, so how could I be in love yet? So I must be
in lust.”
Whatever it was that first date, he pursued it. Using the Greek words
above, I’d say he felt ludus, and
pursued the relationship toward marriage so they could enjoy eros, and eventually pragma. And I’d add that, in a mature
love, there’s a lot of unselfish agape
as well.
Children came out of that marriage. I’ve lost count of how
many grandchildren; they keep coming. The latest family photos take up an
entire wall. There’s something beautiful that comes from that bond of love—a love
that isn’t expressed sexually until the covenant of marriage has been made,
that then provides safe growth for children, and long and happy companionship
for the couple.
In my fairly civilized world, that kind of love shows up
frequently. It’s what most of my circle of friends are striving for, and mostly
succeeding.
I’m not against that kind of love for anyone willing to put
into it enough unselfish love to make it work.
But those who keep thinking they’re going to find it if they
just have enough sexual encounters—they won’t. Every time they engage in sex
without eternal commitment, they aren’t giving
actual love, and they aren’t receiving
it. They are choosing lasciviousness instead of love.
As Weist ends her piece:
Marriage may be all about love but the arguments in favor of
same sex marriage reflect a different kind of love–less concerned with a stable
society or the next generation and more concerned with self. So saying “love wins” is indeed a straw
man. No one is arguing against love,
just which kind is most important.
Often the argument takes place at a distance, and doesn’t
much resemble a conversation. But if the opportunity does come up to talk
things through toward understanding, maybe we can ask, “What kind of love is
winning? What do you mean?” And if they believe they’re talking about some kind
of real love, we can ask, “What makes you think any of us is against that?”
Maybe there will be some who come to see, we’ve been in
favor of real love all along, and maybe we even know how to find it.
No comments:
Post a Comment