Catholicism and Homosexuality Part 6: Love, Not Hate Part 1

We are coming to the end of the series with a two-parter about love and hate. Check out the last installment of the series here if you missed. The first part of Love, Not Hate is going to address in a general way, the current cultural conversation on so-called same-sex marriage. The second part is going to address other areas of the so-called “gay agenda” and highlight areas where we can and should find common ground.

“The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics.”

CCC 1603

There have been countless nations on the face of the earth since the dawn of time. Marriage has been a part of them all. In each place the rites of marriage have been different. In different times and places the freedom in which men and women married varied. But regardless of these types of differences, one thing has remained the same: that marriage is between a man and a woman. Sometimes a man could have multiple marriages, but each individual marriage he had was with one woman. The amazing thing about this truth is that even in past cultures where homosexual behavior was tolerated and even lauded and encouraged, same-sex marriage did not exist.

There is a deeper understanding in the human consciousness that understands that the permanent bonded love between a man and a woman is different than any other relationship, even relationships that are built upon great love! That is why the Catholic Church fights hard against redefining marriage. Redefining marriage undefines it. When marriage is no longer a relationship that benefits society because of its faithfulness and its fecundity, why have marriage at all? Today neither faithfulness nor fecundity are necessary for a relationship to be recognized as marriage. If that is what marriage truly is, then what relationship is marriage? If some kind of temporary attractive feeling is all that is necessary, how could marriage be denied to any group of people? Three people, four people, siblings, parents and children, friends, employer and employee, corporations, etc. If fidelity doesn’t matter, fecundity doesn’t matter, gender doesn’t matter, what really does matter?

Society is rapidly slipping into relativism and rather than opening the definition of marriage to include more people, we will undoubtedly open it so far as to define it out of existence. Obviously Christians of good faith do not want this to happen. Marriage is an institution which honors the special relationship between a husband and a wife that procreates and keeps our race alive. It is an institution which permanently brings the spouses together to responsibly raise their offspring through stability, love, and commitment. Redefining marriage further away from that than it already has (divorce, contraception, etc.) weakens its goals and status as unique. This is what the fight about not redefining marriage to include same-sex couples is about.

The great thing is that this is a universal truth that is not found by faith alone but is arrived at by human reason, and as such is supported by a wide variety of individuals including Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and even atheists. Regardless of doctrine and belief in divinity we all benefit from the goal of natural marriage. There are even great numbers of homosexuals who understand this truth, and understand that the fight is not about relegating the homosexual to a second-class status or dehumanizing them. I really feel for my fellow homosexuals who feel that way, but the feeling really is self-imposed because the movement at large isn’t about criminalizing homosexuality or disparaging them, but about saving a wounded institution for the benefit of our civilization.

Part 7