On marriage

Oh, boy. Another celebrity break up has given gay marriage advocates something to trumpet as further evidence that society need fear no harm from their efforts to redefine marriage.

Can we talk about marriage without focusing on the worst examples of its abuse, please?  The institution of marriage has indeed drifted far from both its sacramental and societal intentions.

I believe this drift finds its roots in society's pervasive contraceptive mentality. Let me observe at the outset that I am not condemning people who use artificial contraception, or I'd be accusing myself as stridently as anyone else. There can be legitimate health reasons for their use, and there may be some married couples who should never accept the uncertainty associated with strictly natural methods - though a) properly used with loving cooperation these can be most effective, and b) using these in conjunction with an artificial backup might be the best approach for these couples. Nor am I heaping condemnation on gay people, the divorced, the promiscuous, or anyone else for that matter. I have enough of a mote in my own eye to not try to focus on the speck in anyone else's.  I would especially hope that my gay and lesbian friends would hear no condemnation, judgment, or anything but love in these words. I, too, struggle to keep the procreative act in its proper perspective, and have stumbled enough to know I'm not better than anyone.  And I think one of the worst things that religious people do is try to hold others to behavioral standards that they themselves struggle with; it becomes an obstacle to faith.

The simple truth is that the institution of marriage exists for specific and narrow reasons, and we've gotten so used to subjugating those to its benefits that we've begun to think of its perquisites as its purpose. Pope Paul VI foresaw this so prophetically in 1968 when he released his encyclical Humanae Vitae, accurately predicting the effect that separating human sexuality from reproduction would have in so many areas of society. The letter begins with a simple sentence that sums up the holistic approach to human sexuality and reproduction that Pope John Paul II would elucidate in far greater detail in the Theology of the Body: "The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator." Even if it turns out that every believer on the planet is wrong about the existence of a creator, the historical truth is that the entire reason for the institution of marriage is to provide a nurturing, protective environment for the spouse who subjugates his or her providing/earning/career potential for the sake of the role of  rearing the children who are created as a result of the married couple's love, and for those children. This result is the primary biological purpose of our sexuality, too.

That is even more fundamentally and unavoidably true if one doesn't believe in God than if one does! If we've simply evolved into the sort of species we are today, the pleasure of our sexuality served to make us seek out the act of reproduction, which we'd otherwise not engage in. I mean, who would ever engage in such a strange activity as sex if it weren't so pleasurable?  On the other hand, if one doesn't believe marriage is ordained by God, it is easy enough to conclude that we should do all we can to change it for the benefit of our current perceived reality.

Pope Paul suggested that our use of artificial contraception would further a mindset that had already taken root in society.  He said:

"(T)he most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man's stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life—over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life."

He observed that this mindset would lead to the general attitude that we are entitled to the pleasure of our sexuality separately from the natural consequences and biological function of our actions.  (I've thought of it like being fascinated by the kick of a firearm and the smell of the powder without any regard for the projectile.)  He went on to underscore the indivisible nature of the various aspects of our sexuality:

"The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called."

He went on to elucidate some of the potential consequences of the course gaining such strength in society:

" . . . (R)eflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control.  . . . (C)onsider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

"Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective?"

One need only consider the subsequent example of China to recognize his prescience.

In the last half-century, we've decided to fully avail ourselves of the technology at our disposal to separate this pleasurable and unitive act from the biological reason it exists: the production of offspring. But as we've done so, we've tried to preserve the institution that was developed specifically around the latter set of functions, except to expand its application as if it exists primarily for the sake of the former.

Let's not try to misappropriate the benefits that are intended for the protection of those who have focused on producing and raising their children.  It would make more sense to scrap the whole institution.  But no one wants that; they rather want the benefits, even if the reason behind them has ceased to apply in many cases. I am of course generalizing.  I am blessed to know many couples who marry with the intention of spending a life together raising and loving the family that results from their union.  And I believe this is so important that society should still afford them the support that the institution of marriage has provided.

Yet we can't seem to have any discussion of gay marriage that accounts for these sorts of issues without being accused of homophobia and hate speech.  We're told instead that we must focus only on what is an individual's right to do with this basic, undeniable (!) , individual (!) biological (!) function in the context in which our society views our sexuality.