Gay Marriage and the End of Christian Civilization

Archives
August 16th, 2010
Fr. Thomas Euteneuer

Back in the 90s when Fr. Paul Marx, founder of HLI, was asked his opinion about the efforts to legalize “same-sex unions” he commented in his usual forthright fashion, “When they do that,” he said, “it’s the end.” He meant “the end” of the Christian civilization whose values used to form the basis of American common life. Fr. Marx, in a prophetic sense, saw rightly that a society cannot survive the perverse manipulation of the very structure of reality that God Himself has revealed to us, one very fundamental element of which is the institution of marriage. When we allow that to be changed-”It’s the end.”

In 2009, 52% of the voting population in California endorsed Proposition 8 which ratified the constitutional protection of marriage as between a man and a woman. One might argue that even 52% was shockingly low on something so important, but the people won that battle despite the veritable war of the homosexual militants to sink that Proposition. In fact, Christian decency won and the structure of reality stayed intact, at least in this aspect of law in California, until this week when a single judge just nullified 7 million votes and the will of the people and lifted the “ban” on gay marriage. There was rejoicing in Sodom on the Bay, but how sad for our nation and even for our poor, misguided world that will weaken in its opposition to the homosexual lifestyle as a result of this decision.

So why, you ask, is gay marriage wrong? Let me count the ways.

First and foremost is because it violates the revealed Will of God as seen in Scripture. There are few things as clear in God’s revelation as the sacred institution of marriage between a man and a woman. From Genesis 1 (the marriage of Adam and Eve) to Revelation 21 (the marriage of Christ the Lamb with His Bride the Church) God has had only one model of marriage, and it is not gay marriage. Even polygamy and divorce was done away with in the Christian Church, as Our Lord reminded all of the essence of marriage as it was “in the beginning.” This Christian view of marriage became the norm of Western society and its most basic societal unit, undoubtedly allowing the West to flourish.

A close second to this is that gay marriage distorts the very concept of parenting as well as marriage. Even if you overlook the fact that gay marriage is by definition sterile, every child of a gay marriage has to be adopted or artificially inseminated, and that in itself is a violation of the whole concept of family. In the 80s the Vatican actually said that the adoption of children by homosexuals “does violence” to the child. Pretty strong language, but true nonetheless. In its simplest terms, kids need a mom and a dad, and are forever stigmatized by being the child of a gay marriage. Kids model their lives, their concept of family, their morals and oftentimes their whole worldview on their parents’ attitudes and values. These kids get a totally distorted view of all these basics.

Third but by no means the last reason, all of society suffers because of the public endorsement of an intrinsically disordered lifestyle and practice. Yes, “disordered” is what our Church calls both the homosexual orientation and lifestyle, and gay marriage simply ratifies that disorder on a social level. In recent debates, the term “human right” to describe gay marriage and the charge that anyone who stands against it is guilty of “discrimination” are examples of these fundamental distortions. Fr. Marx was right: a society cannot long survive this kind of violence done to its basic values, and history surely shows many societies like Ancient Greece, whose rapid decline was preceded by the proliferation of the gay lifestyle and its public acceptance.

While we respect all people as they are, we don’t have to respect such a wholesale assault on everything that is sacred to us and good for our society; no, in fact, we must fight against it with our very lives. The question is not whether or not we can win the battle; the question is whether we will join it. Will we accept the challenge to defend the sacred or not? We are called to be faithful and obedient to the Plan of God for our world, and within that, God will bring forth the victory. There is no doubt that, if it is not already there, gay marriage will be coming to your state soon. If we don’t fight it, our souls, our families and basically, our very civilization, will find themselves at “the end” of the line in very short order.

Comments

http://www.catholicexchange.com Mary Kochan

brianm, Rodrigo Guerra, has made a slight error. It is true that our tradition and scripture tell us these things aobut homosexual acts. However, that alone is not how we know them, both the Scripture and the tradition point to the natural law. it is first by the natural law that we know that the acts are intrinsically disordered and immoral.

This is precisely the argument made by St. Paul in Romans: That men were without excuse because everythingthey had to know about basic morality was clear from the natural order, apart from any revelation. He even references the diseases and bad effects that clearly mark homosexual acts as unhealthy:

“Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

By ‘in their own persons’ he means the mental and physical health effects — including lowered life expectancy — that show any rational person that this is not what the body is made for.
brianm

Rodrigo Guera:
“The Catholic Church opposes homosexual acts because they are intrinsically disordered and immoral, an abuse of our human nature and contrary to God’s will for his creation.”

I have no problem with your personal belief that homosexuality is wrong, just as I have no problem with a Jew abstaining from consuming pork. My problem with you and your church is that you feel the need to impose you warped version of your god’s ‘will’ on society through laws that hurt people. As for your claims about homosexuality, can they be proven apart from scripture? If the Jewish community suddenly launched a campaign to rid the nation of pork, they would need some pretty good secular reasons why. You should not be surprised then to find that your cherry-picked verses hold no water when scrutinized in court or when examined by me.

Remember, this isn’t some abstract theological discussion we’re having. This is about a law that impacts lives.
brianm

Mary Kochan:

Your continued use of the term “natural” bears no relevance to this topic. It is “unnatural” to smoke cigarettes, live in a sealed-off air-conditioned home, ride a bus…even much of our food is “unnatural.” How natural something is is not a meaningful criteria for what is wrong and what is right. A good argument could be made on that basis that we should not wear clothes, as they are “unnatural.”

Towards the end you seemed to be arguing from a paternalistic perspective. This is somewhat valid, since some laws have been passed denying rights to citizens on the basis that it is harmful to them. The problem is that there is a means by which sexual partners can protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases. Since the protection exists and is readily available, homosexuality does not present an unreasonable threat to the individual. It’s definitely not more harmful than cigarettes or alcohol- so if you are really arguing from a purely paternalistic perspective, your efforts would be better spent banning alcohol and cigarettes rather than homosexuality.
http://www.catholicexchange.com Mary Kochan

brianm, thank you for continuing this discussion with such politeness. But I think you are committing some fallacies.

To attribute indiscriminate sexual activity among animals to “homosexuality” is to attribute to the animals human rationality. A ram does not know that it is male. A ram does not even know that it is a ram. A ram that mounts another ram does not know it is mounting a ram as opposed to a ewe, any more than a bull that mounts a sperm collection apparatus knows it is not mounting a cow. These animals are responding to stimuli, period. In the case of most that is scent. The ram responds to scent. The scent of a female may be on another male, or it may just be in the air. Due to rivalry many males in mammilian groups are prevented from ever sexually connecting with a female so they connect with what is available. They also use mounting to show agression, frustration, or dominance.

But you have not explained WHY it is that if you are going to use that to claim homosexuality is normal FOR HUMANS, we ought not to claim that other things like eating the young, robbing food from the weaker, etc. are not normal behaviors for humans. What is the basis for your distinction?

For me the basis is that HUMANS ARE NOT ANIMALS — what is natural for animals is NOT natural for humans. In fact everything that animals do IS natural. An animal never acts unnaturally because it cannot will to act contrary to its nature. Humans are different. A human can be inhumane, but an animal cannot be inanimalistic. Whenever we say a human is being inhumane, we are saying that the human being has in some way betrayed his nature. Been less than what he ought to be. We do not make ought statements about animals. if two women get into a physical fight over the last doll in Christmas display, we call it a cat fight. One or both of them may be charged with assault or disorderly conduct because we agree they OUGHT not to act like that. But when the real cats in the alley fight, we don’t charge them with a crime; we don’t even make the statement that they ought not to fight.

What is natural for animals is not natural for humans.

Natural law IS relevant as it is the basis for all our laws in this country. It is the basis for the very founding of our country:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation — Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence.

Thank you for reading, brianm.
brianm

Mary Kochan:

I think you misunderstood my previous comments. I said that “Your continued use of the term “natural” bears no relevance to this topic.” I don’t think that laws should be based off of what is most in tune with nature, whatever that means. Neither do you, otherwise you would probably live out in the woods naked somewhere eating fruit and nuts. Our discussion of homosexuality in animals runs tangent to the primary topic, which is how allowing same-sex marriage could be wrong. Nevertheless I feel the need to correct you on one thing before we get back on topic. When I said that some animals are recorded as having a same-sex preference, it is indeed very similar to the preferences of some humans, not just the result of confusion- although that is sometimes also the case. There’s a Wikipedia article on this subject that has some very insightful links to studies that have been conducted, I would recommend browsing them as they’re very fascinating.

As I said though, it matters little how natural homosexuality is or isn’t, that is not a valid standard to judge laws by.

“But you have not explained WHY it is that if you are going to use that to claim homosexuality is normal FOR HUMANS, we ought not to claim that other things like eating the young, robbing food from the weaker, etc. are not normal behaviors for humans. What is the basis for your distinction?”

Once again my basis is not about what is natural, that standard becomes meaningless/ridiculous when applied to most of our everyday choices.

My basis is that the government should not restrict rights unless there is very good reason to. You listed “stealing” and “eating the young” as comparisons, but those examples obviously involve victims, whereas in homosexuality, no one is victimized. The U.S. government is not designed in a way that people must justify why they should have each and every right- how could you possibly justify mundane things such as eating oatmeal instead of cereal- instead, it is assumed that the people hold every right to do anything unless the government can find good reason to restrict those rights. That is why I do not need to justify why same-sex partners should have the right to marry, you must justify why they should have that right taken away.
http://saintslppr.com fjindra

Brianm, I quote your comments to me as you numbered them, my responses follow:

1.Same-sex couples are not synonymous with ‘absentee fathers.’ To suggest that two lesbian parents are only worth as much as one hetero parent displays your ignorance for all to see.

I did not intend to imply synonymity. What I was declaring is that other-than-traditional families exhibit higher rates of disfunctionality in children. That has been documented. To therefore subject children to this situation via homosexual “parents” is unconscionable.

2.If you insist that same-sex couples shouldn’t have their own children (for the sake of the child), I’m sure you would at least support them adopting a child. Children who spend their critical years in an orphanage or in various foster homes certainly suffer more confusion and dysfunction than any LBG couple could inflict on them!

No, for the same reason listed above and because the dysfunctionality so clearly detailed in this discussion would not orient a child toward the natural law structure of human nature. See the next response.

3.Natural law. I’m not sure what you mean by calling your religious guidelines natural. Surely you’re aware that hundreds of different species have been recorded having homosexual relations among each other? If natural means what it usually means (of nature, pertaining to nature, ect.) it would seem that homosexuality is actually quite natural. I think you were just using the word “natural” as a stand in for “not-yucky.”

You betray an extreme lack of knowledge. A simple search of “natural law” on Wikipedia yields the following description:
As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (meaning “man-made law”, not “good law”; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.[2] In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two.
Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation.[3] Natural law theories have, however, exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[4] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The essence of Declarationism is that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.
So natural law, as we use the term, is not what is “done in nature” as you erroneously keep attempting to foist on this discussion. Attempting to use animal activity as a comparison of natural law is not using the term as we use it. Mary’s descriptions have been spot-on. Understand and use the terms as used by your interlocutors. Anything else is not logical discussing.

4. This point probably doesn’t need to be made, but you never know… Surely you don’t think that the sole purpose of marriage is reproduction? If that were the case, it would be best to keep wives constantly impregnated so as to maximize the eh…fruitfulness. Interestingly enough that was the social norm in the Mediterranean nations back when that verse was originally written, but darn that social change! Always weakening our “god- breathed” values of traditional marriage!
No, as Pope Paul VI described marriage in Humanae Vitae, the two primary points of marriage are unitive and pro-creative – as one philosopher puts it poetically: marriage is for babies and for bonding. It is not about subjecting women to exclusive, life-long child-rearing activity. Most of the women that I know have minds that are too great for that! Plus the way women are made does not allow for that, as their years of fertility are typically much less than that of their husband.

You seem to think that social change, just because it is change, is good. If you hold to that form of relativism, I feel very sorry you, because change could happen that would be very disruptive. Islamic sharia law for instance would allow for much more justification of capital punishment – including, if I am not mistaken, homosexuals. Social order needs to follow on the basis of natural law – as defined above – not on some feeling-of-the-moment notionality. It cannot be that what is right in one moment is wrong in another.

You may be inclined to respond with the question of slavery. Let me head you off on that one: slavery as experienced in apostolic times was more of an indentured servant. Yes, there were some exceptions, but that appears to be the rule. Also, Jewish law required a year of Jubilee every 49 years where all slaves were set free and debts absolved. The Church understood that the socio-economic order in “New Testament times” depended on slavery/indentured servanthood, and St. Paul wrote very clearly about the nature of the relationship that was required of people in that setting. Lastly, while there were those who supported slavery-as-experienced in our hemisphere within the Church, it was the Christians in-and-out of the Church that demanded justice in this regard. To claim now that there is a comparison or similitude between racial discrimination and homosexual discrimination is to compare apples to oranges, as the saying goes. Sorry, no similitude exists. Subjugating another human being for racial reasons is against the dignity of the person, thus is against the natural law. Denying equality of relationships between heterosexuals over-against homosexuals is not the same, regardless of how stridently it is declared to be the same, because homosexual activity is intrinsically against natural law.
Fr. Frank E. Jindra, AS
brianm

fjindra:

1. “I did not intend to imply synonymity. What I was declaring is that other-than-traditional families exhibit higher rates of disfunctionality in children. That has been documented. To therefore subject children to this situation via homosexual “parents” is unconscionable.”

If you’ll refer to one of my previous comments, I pointed out that life in an orphanage in in various foster homes is much more dysfunctional than a non-traditional family. And as I also previously mentioned, the demographic with the highest degree of dysfunctional families is African Americans. We don’t deny the right to raise children based on demographics information. I’m sure I don’t need to further explain how disastrous that would be for our society. We have social services that try to insure that children have a safe stable household, but they do their work case by case, not based on statistical averages.

2.”As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior.”

Natural Law. I realize what you and Mary meant by natural law, what you don’t seem to realize is that the study of human nature is closely entwined with animal nature. We do not have wild humans that we can refer moral questions to-nor would we I suspect- but studying for example the great apes, who possess (on a primitive level) human-like social attitudes is about as close as we can get to finding evidence for a “natural law.”

As I said though, this discussion of natural law is pointless in relation to the primary topic. It would not matter if homosexuality fell within the confines of human nature or if it were a social construct. (obviously the evidence for the former is compelling, see previous comments) Natural Law is not an affective means of moral reasoning, first of all because human nature can be difficult to discern and secondly because it is not always beneficial to conform to our base instincts.

I’m trying to understand how you think natural law enters into this discussion, as you use it quite frequently. Perhaps it would be helpful if you spelled out how you are reasoning through human nature that homosexuality is wrong. So far you your statements regarding natural law have been without depth, simply stating and restating that homosexuality violates natural law. Show me how. Then perhaps we’ll have better understanding between us.
caporasa

At the risk of stating the obvious, homosexuals in the natural state are incapable of procreating, which is a significant deprivation. This “privation” is deeply felt by many loving homosexual couples. They lack complementary sexual organs and therefore cannot generate biological offspring. Thus homosexuality is not a “normal” state, if it ever did become the “normal” state within a particular species, it would cease to exist.
http://www.catholicexchange.com Mary Kochan

brianm, natural law is an effective basis for making many moral determinations. Here is why:

First of all, it is accessible to all men in all times and all cultures. CS Lewis showed the great unity of morality across and time and culture and called this shared human partimony The Tao.

It allows us to bracket religious belief which is really almost a prerequisite in a modern diverse society where a mere “Thou Shalt Not” might not be authoritative to someone who does not share our beliefs.

Without a grounding in natural law, positive law (man made statutes) can become merely aribtrary and tools of oppression. Positive law may also become oppressive in multiplying detailed dictates that cannot evoke the intelligent assent of the governed, causing social unrest and widespread lawlessness.

Natural law considerations really undergird all the “social progress” and “rights” appeals you keep referring to. It really takes — for gay marriage — to be accepted as a right, the overturning of the 2500 years of thought and social experimentation that developed Western civilization which gave the very concept of human rights to the world.

You might think of it as the “golden goose” that you are trying to kill, if you know that story.

How do we reason according to natural law regarding homosexual relations?

Well we first look objectively at the reality of how men and women are made and the complementary function of their bodies. Natural law is grounded in the reality of what things are and a belief in the ability of human reason to make that judgement. This one is obvious. Really it is; it has been obvious to humans for millenia. If there comes a day when there are human beings walking around to whom the normal function of the male vis a vis the female is no longer obvious well, first of all I hope they don’t go to work in a hardware store — and second, I hardly think an arguemnt could be mounted that their ignorance represents an advancement in human knowledge.

A second way natural law helps us here is by looking at the good of all humans. We can just do a thought experiment (hat tip to Kant). If all homosexual relations were to cease and all humans only had heterosexual relations, would the human species be harmed in any way? The answer is no. The human species would actaully be healthier.

Let’s flip it around. If heterosexual relations ceased and all humans had only homosexual relations, would the human species be harmed? YES — the species would die out! That would be the natural consequence. Natural law helps us to see that the natutral consequences of a behavior teach us something about whether it is morally good or not.

Now, let me say something about the relation between natural law and positive law. We are not asserting that everything that is immoral according to natural law reasoning has to be unlawful by statute. I am not for homosexual relations between consenting adults being illegal. I am not for fornication or adultery — which are also immoral, although not disordered, being illegal either. But that is because I think the kind of intrusive power needed by the state to enforce such statutes threatens freedom. So we aren’t making the argument that everything that is immoral has to be illegal.

But — everything that is legally sanctioned — that is positively supported by law, has to be moral. The law can be silent on certain things. But when the law approves and endorses something — that thing has to be right and good according to natural law.
http://www.catholicexchange.com Mary Kochan

I should respond to this question of yours, brianm:

“My basis is that the government should not restrict rights unless there is very good reason to. You listed “stealing” and “eating the young” as comparisons, but those examples obviously involve victims, whereas in homosexuality, no one is victimized. The U.S. government is not designed in a way that people must justify why they should have each and every right- how could you possibly justify mundane things such as eating oatmeal instead of cereal- instead, it is assumed that the people hold every right to do anything unless the government can find good reason to restrict those rights. That is why I do not need to justify why same-sex partners should have the right to marry, you must justify why they should have that right taken away.”

My answer is that you have it backwards. Homosexuals have never had the right to marry — homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage IS something — it IS the union of a man and woman, and is supported as a positive good for socety because it is the means by which society continues into the future. Homosexuals have right now exactly the same right to marry that everyone else has — the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Marriage gives a societal stamp of approval to the sexual union between a man and woman because the man and woman together prepetuate the species and the society and because the union of the man and woman is the origin of the society.

What homosexuals are asking for is a NEW right — the right to change the definition of marriage from a union of a man and woman to the union of any people who want to have the government stamp of approval on their sexual activities. But the activity in which they engage does nothing for the good of society. It is in fact parasitical on the heterosexual relationships of their own familes of origin and the wider society. The homosexual himself owes his own existence to heterosexual relations!

We don’t have to justify removing the right — it doesn’t exist and never has. They have to demonstrate a benefit to society, but in fact we already see just the opposite. We see that creating this new thing entails the removal of other rights. Freedom of speech and religion for example.

You and I agree that the state does not give rights — it merely recognizes that the rights exist. Look here:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Rights come from God. That is the basis of our laws, that our rights come from God. Marriage also comes from God. It is understood and has always been understood across cultures and religions to be grounded in Creation itself. You might view this as just a religious retelling of the natural law — that things are created purposefully and that we can ascertain the purpose of the Creator by looking at Creation.

Human rights AND human marraige exist prior to the state. The state cannot change them; the state does not confer them; the state merely recognizes them. The state cannot “recognize” a right of gays to marry because it does not exist. All the state can do is claim to give it to them. To claim the power to create it as a new right. Granting to the state the power to do that undermines everything you are saying about the limits of state control and power.
brianm

-Mary Kochan:
It seems that your reasoning boils down to this point- if everyone were homosexual, we would cease to exist. There’s a problem with your reasoning though. Human nature isn’t identical from individual to individual. There are lots of similarities but also deviations, in intellect or physiology or psychology- even sexual preference. There is a whole spectrum of sexual preference which includes those who are heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, and even those who lack sexual drive entirely. To point to any one of these and say “that is natural law” is ignoring the natural scope of human diversity.

Additionally, the hypothetical scenario of “well if everyone did this” is generally useless in discussions like this. I could apply it to a million everyday activities creating many nightmare scenarios, but it doesn’t make any of those activities wrong. It just make this argument meaningless.

You’re not quite grasping my legal arguments I think. As I said previously,

“My basis is that the government should not restrict rights unless there is very good reason to. You listed “stealing” and “eating the young” as comparisons, but those examples obviously involve victims, whereas in homosexuality, no one is victimized. The U.S. government is not designed in a way that people must justify why they should have each and every right- how could you possibly justify mundane things such as eating oatmeal instead of cereal- instead, it is assumed that the people hold every right to do anything unless the government can find good reason to restrict those rights. That is why I do not need to justify why same-sex partners should have the right to marry, you must justify why they should have that right taken away.”

Removing restrictions on marriage for same-sex partners is not “positive support” for their actions, at least not in a legal sense. In that respect it is similar to your examples of divorce or fornication- not placing a ban on those activities is not “positive support,” it is just recognition that there is not enough reason to restrict those rights.
brianm

Mary kochan:
“My answer is that you have it backwards. Homosexuals have never had the right to marry — homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage IS something — it IS the union of a man and woman, and is supported as a positive good for socety because it is the means by which society continues into the future. Homosexuals have right now exactly the same right to marry that everyone else has — the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Marriage gives a societal stamp of approval to the sexual union between a man and woman because the man and woman together prepetuate the species and the society and because the union of the man and woman is the origin of the society.”

Prior to the American civil war, African Americans were not citizens and did not possess any of the rights that distinction entails. Someone in the mid 19th century arguing that African Americans shouldn’t have those rights because they never had them is nonsensical. Of course they never had those rights, but it was recognized that skin color is not reason enough to continue to deprive them of those rights. Likewise it is being recognized that sexual orientation is not reason enough to deprive partners of the right to formalize their union- a union that is only different physiologically. As in the case of skin color, that difference is shallow and is not at the core of the issue. A Black man can pay taxes and own property and vote just like a white man, and a same-sex couple can love each other and provide for each other just like a hetero couple.
brianm

It should also be pointed out that when African Americans were allowed citizenship, the government was not “creating a new right.” It was just removing arbitrary restrictions of that right.
http://www.catholicexchange.com Mary Kochan

The connection between the rights of African Americans and the issue of “gay marriage” is this:

By application of natural law principles it can clearly be known to human reason (as was tirelessly proclaimed by the mostly-Christian abolitionists) that chattel slavery was a moral evil.

and

By application of natural law principles it can be clearly known to human reason that homosexual acts are immoral and that there can be no such thing as “same-sex marriage.”

Both conclusions follow from clarity regarding what man is.
caporasa

In my experience the sex drive is peculiar in that it can easily overcome objective reason and lead us to do things that in retrospect were selfish and not for the greater good. On the other hand, when the conjugal act is performed in the state of holy matrimony, and is open to life, it is transformed into something that is self-giving and other-centered. One is amazed that you can, in a sense, become a co-creator with God and gain a sense of the inner reality on which all families are based – the holy Trinity. Sex becomes sacred.
In the long run we are all on this modest planet in the vast cosmos for but a brief moment. While we still have breath we must always seek after the Truth, wherever it leads us. We must ask ourselves if God exists, and if so has He/She made an effort to reveal Himself/Herself to us. Of all the “religions” out there, which is the most grounded in history, which makes the most sense of this fallen state where in (don’t kid yourselves, without God we are all in the end little more then “rats in a cage”). We are all finite beings who long for the eternal. My search has lead me to conclude that only in Christ (God-made-Man) is the answer.
I feel for my brothers and sisters who truly suffer with same sex attraction, (who would choose to be in a loving relationship that is a priori closed to the possibility of bearing children). I think of the ~20% of heterosexual couples who have difficulty conceiving and all the hardships they go through. We must try to put ourselves in their shoes. Love must come before all-else.
In this life we all have our faults and limitations. We can either curse God or the “cosmos” for them, or we can acknowledge them and like St. Paul offer them up, so that they can be used as a conduit of Grace.
brianm

Mary Kochan:
Your previous comment did nothing to further your case. I already know you think natural law is relevant and that you think it backs up your claims. You have yet to demonstrate how either of these is the case and have neglected to answer the central question in this debate- what justifies the government in keeping same-sex couples from getting married?
http://saintslppr.com fjindra

brianm,

You concluded your last comment to me:

“I’m trying to understand how you think natural law enters into this discussion, as you use it quite frequently. Perhaps it would be helpful if you spelled out how you are reasoning through human nature that homosexuality is wrong. So far you your statements regarding natural law have been without depth, simply stating and restating that homosexuality violates natural law. Show me how. Then perhaps we’ll have better understanding between us.”

What you are asking for is a short lesson in metaphysics, which is concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world. That is a big request in a short space! I will try.

One part of the nature of humanity is that we are rational beings. Proof of that resides in a simple example that we are able to conceive of infinity. No other creature on earth has the intellectual capacity to do so. Therefore, our rationality – intrinsic to our being – makes us different from any other being on earth. That is why your comparative appeal to what animals do is not a legitimate argument. Our rationality makes us different from any other animal, though similar in some ways.

Because of this difference, natural LAW for humanity is different in kind from the natural ORDER of animals. While there are similarities, there are also important differences. One example is the human intellect which we are to use for the betterment of ourselves and all the earth. Other negative examples of this have been presented to you earlier in this thread: prohibitions on stealing, killing, which can be summarized as “violating the integrity and good of another “ – in essence, this summary addresses the inalienable rights claimed by the founders of our country (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness).

The integrity of our sexual beings resides in the fundamental, correct use of this function of our humanity. Do you claim that there are other correct functions for sexual actions when what is produced via the sexual act is intended, in kind (the sperm and egg), to form a new life? No. This cannot be, because we are physical as well as intellectual beings. The combination of the two (physical and intellectual) demands integrity that is more than just physical gratification, but cannot exclude that. Both aspects must be integrated. In order to be integrated, the sexual act must be open to the possibility of a new life.

Granted, not every sexual act between a husband and wife produces a child, the design of the human body prohibits that, based on the cycle of fertility of the wife. That is why Pope Paul VI acknowledged that there are two primary ends of marriage: unitive and procreative – both must be there!

The possibility of conception and the unitive bond of the couple are the proper, fundamental functions of the sexual abilities of men and women. The unitive bond engages the intellect of the couple; the procreative bond ensures succeeding generations. No relationship can claim to be marriage without both. If I am remembering my Church rules correctly, someone unable to perform sexually is not allowed to marry in the Catholic Church (or may be able to do so only with special dispensation – any Canon lawyers out there with better knowledge than me?). Infertility is not incapacity. If someone is capable of the sexual act, but not able to produce offspring, the right intention of the act is still maintained, and marriage is possible.

So, whatever consciously violates the integrity of the human person – in the example under discussion: homosexual activity – is against natural law. It matters not whether those involved think they are not being violated. The understanding of natural law is that it is inalienable, which Webster’s dictionary defines as “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred.” So no matter how much a homosexual couple thinks they are in love with each other, to use themselves or the other person in a way that violates or circumvents the correct function of the sexual act goes against the natural law. This is also why masturbation is a grave sin.

I don’t know how we can make this clearer to you. Mary has given you very clear answers which you continue to spuriously reject. I have here answered your request demonstrating philosophically the fallacy of homosexual “marriage.” It is a violation of the integrity of the human person.

It is possible that your persistence is an indication of a moral blindness that we cannot address. In that case, only the Spirit of God can break through. May God go with you.

Fr. Frank E. Jindra, AS
http://www.catholicexchange.com Mary Kochan

One last try:

Natural law is the very foundation of all our laws in the country and for that matter the foundation for the very existence of our country. Natural law also has corrected our country’s errors. It was natural law that was applied with direct appeal to the Declaration during the entire abolition struggle and during the struggle for black civil rights.

In order for there to be such a thing as “gay marriage” we have to allow that positive law may rightly violate natural law.

Once we allow that, we have removed the very arguments according to which civil rights were obtained, slavery was abolished, and our country was founded.

“Gay marriage” is NOT an issue of civil rights. It is NOT a continuation of of a widened application of natural law to positive law (which is what the entire civil rights movement was) it is a departure from civil rights and as pointed out here repeatedly and with no response by you, it is immediately followed by an attack on the first amendment rights of others — which shows by actual experience — not theory — that it undermines liberty for the entire society.

So to your argument that the government must have a good reason for any restriction it puts on its citizens, the answer is simple. The government can simply say, “In order to grant you this right, we have to undermine the reasons for our own existence as a country and curtail the fundamental liberties of all our other citizens. That’s plenty good enough reason to say no to you.”

Catholic Exchange

NewsWire