The question of homosexual marriage is based on a false principle, namely, that the end of marriage is either pleasure or reproduction, or perhaps primarily pleasure and secondarily, reproduction. This confusion ignores the true order which is quite apparent if human nature is adequately understood. For it is the comprehension of that nature which permits man to determine how he ought to behave.1 In similar fashion, unless the very idea of a car is correctly understood in order to discover how we ought to treat it, we will soon wreck our means of transport by failing to change the oil, or attend to the coolant and other means of maintaining engine efficiency.

In the case of human nature, Aristotle, followed by St. Thomas, stated that we receive three things from our parents, namely, existence, nourishment, and education.2 In this manner, they verify that the end is first principle in practical matters.3 For the end of human sexuality is a live human person and this requires not only that we receive existence but also that we receive nourishment and education in order to properly arrive at perfection of the offspring. Each of these elements needs careful consideration.

EXISTENCE

It is evident from an adequate examination of the physical, physiological and psychological complimentary natures of man and woman that marriage has as its proximate or immediate end the unification of two people, one male and the other female, while the ultimate end is reproduction of the species.4 First, mutual love, both sensitive and intellective, draws man and woman into the formation of the conjugal society. This union is preparatory to the formation of, and suitable environment for, the familial society which consists of man, woman and child(ren). The universality of these unions clearly argues to the naturalness of the social organism since it has existed and has been recognized down through the ages. For there cannot be a universal effect without a universal cause.5 Likewise the universal rejection of homosexual unions, except in the case of the phenomenon of de-education of some individuals, also argues to the unnaturalness of such homosexual unions.6

No amount of mental gymnastics could deny the direct intent of nature in the structure and operation of the sexual powers of man and woman. The evidence, that the ultimate end for which that function exists is the reproduction of the species, is most striking. To deny this would be just as irrational as denying that eating food is for nutrition but is consumed simply for the enjoyment of the sensual pleasure involved. For in both cases, it is clear that nature offers an inducement to exercise the function; hence the coital experience is an intermediate end, a proximate end, but certainly not the ultimate end which is the production of a new live human person. To assume that an offspring is a by-product is utterly absurd.7 Furthermore, it should be carefully noted that the anatomical difference between rectal tissue and vaginal tissue clearly manifests the unsuitability of rectal tissue for sexual acts.

Certain errors, encouraging those above, appear within our times, as follows: a) There has been a conscious and deliberate separation of the unitive and procreative functions of human sexuality.8 Some, convincing themselves with false philosophies, have set the stage for the acceptance of this separation, which has spread rather through an argument from approbation than logical argumentation. 9 Opportunism or personal advantage, springing from indulgence in libertine sexual practices, appears to have had greater influence in the acceptance of homosexuality and its practices than clear logical reasoning. It is significant that accompanying the spread of this modus vivendi has been the decline in cultural stability, religious practice, and general education while audiences have been bombarded with radio and television influences under the captivity of those imbued with extremely liberal tendencies. Television offers leadership in everything contrary to the natural moral law frequently adding a sexual element to a play with a view to seducing the imagination of audiences. One cannot hear sex, talk sex, read sex and think sex day after day without it having an undue influence on one’s imagination.10 Chesterton’s “lavatory wit” has at last succeeded in bringing great influence into our homes with destructive results.

However, these two aspects of sexual intercourse, the unitive and procreative, are both essential to the act. Acting directly against either aspect is to act against the whole human act, since the being of the act is indivisible. Hence, contraception becomes an anti-procreative procreative act, a contradiction in terms, essentially an irrational act and employed by a rational animal. No one would suggest that an anti-unitive unitive act (such as rape) would be acceptable!

Once sex had been allocated to a new category of recreative instrument, it became separated from its procreative function whereupon any use of sex as long as it achieved pleasure, not even love, it was acceptable. All of this flies in the face of the obvious utility of human sexualityindeed, any animal sexuality—in its proper function of continuation of the species. The wonderful design of the family with its extraordinary capacity for developing offspring, its marvelous physiology, endurance, biologically inclined personality, wedding of the sensitive and intellective appetites, results in the perfection of the species, achieved with mature offspring.

The marvelous wisdom behind nature is indicated in the design of the order within the marital society, goods for the parents and goods for the offspring, indeed, common goods for all. For the parents enjoy mutual love, mutual aid, and a natural remedy for concupiscence; the child benefits from the climate of love with all of its material benefits.11

b) A second error allowing the rise of homosexual marriage is the confusion between what proceeds from will and what proceeds from nature.12 For example, it is from nature that man marries a woman as well as what the nature and purpose of marriage are, but whom he marries is from will. To confuse these two concepts is the greatest blunder one can make in the natural order of human behavior as well as the science of ethics, the science which discovers how man ought to behave.13

c) A third error is the irresponsibility towards family life which has become manifest in our current confused cultural milieu. Politicians, newspapers, and journals of various stripes are commenting on this disturbance within our societies. This irresponsible attitude seems to follow quite logically from the previous error—the contempt for the true marital society.

d) A fourth error influencing modern societies is the toleration of divorce accelerated by the film industry and permitted by the lax court systems—and perhaps the acceptance of anyone who can be elected or appointed to serve as a judge in spite of his lack of suitable education.14 The distinction between what is common and what is normal (meaning, how things ought to be according to the order of nature) becomes confused in the minds of the citizenry and allows for numerous common errors such as the assumption that marriage is more or less a game with arbitrary rules.

SUSTENANCE

The provision of all the material needs of a child requires the attention of two parents, one earning the necessary provisions while the other supplies the more immediate goods suited to the development of good health and growth—food, clothing and housing. Thus there are two aspects, one whereby the goods are won through work and exchange, the other whereby they are suitably provided for the offspring (e.g., the cooking of food, preparation of clothing and so forth). It is not difficult to see the need of the division of labor, one aspect for the father, the other for the mother for which she is suitably endowed by nature. Sacrifices are demanded of the parents, the father laboring to acquire the necessities, the mother laboring in matters more biological for which she functions better than the father.15

EDUCATION

The third gift we receive from our parents is education, which is defined by St. Thomas as “the making of a new man right up to the state of virtue.”16 This task is a demanding one which lasts for approximately 21 years. The daily watching over the development of the offspring with the physical and psychological maturation demands careful supervision and guidance. Correction on a daily basis is a long process, demanding enormous patience. This is best done by those who love the child most and those who love the child most are its generants (biological parents) unless some de-educative process has degraded them.17

Education involves the development of the intellectual and moral virtues; the former aids the development of a person who is good in some particular way (e.g., an engineer), while the latter helps the maturation of one who is simply a good person. Two influences exist to bring about this development, example and instruction, and both with a lot of correction. Right from the start, good example with early elementary instruction should proceed with a special love for the child. Hence, there is no replacement for good parents who not only have the virtues but are willing to share them with a sacrificial love for their own offspring. Common sense and the common consent of mankind credit this task to those who are its parents. If an artist can take great pride in something he has produced, seeing in his artifact a good, a truth, and a beauty which he loves, surely a greater love and pride do not exist than that had by those who have given existence to an offspring. This can be observed even among brute animals where a mother will die defending her young. But human nature is far more complex and needs the care of two parents who, with their complementary temperaments can supply an abundance of love, understanding, and skills to another rational being whom they have produced together. The importance of this “togetherness” must not be overlooked, for the pride and joy experienced by parents at the result of their productive activity can only be truly understood by those who have experienced the whole process.

FAMILY

In the formation of the family group, there is a new threefold organic unity formed between father, mother, and child. It is within this unit that all three requirements or benefits, namely, existence, nourishment, and education are best found. Those who generate young Joseph will generally have his best interests at heart. How certain can we be that surrogate parents would act in the best interest of little Joseph? Will they undertake laborious tasks in preparing food, seeking out the best education, guarding the means of his intellectual and emotional maturation as would real parents?

There is, no doubt, a unifying bond between all three of the benefits we receive from our biological parents. This has been recognized and has been a model for family life from time immemorial; this common effect is a sign of a common cause—human nature itself. One would be foolish to deny that many families neglect their children in nourishment and education. But this exceptional case arises from a de-educative process, encountered in many societies.

Having given existence to Joseph, his parents are then more likely to make sacrifices to obtain good food and good education. Every artist naturally wishes to enhance his product, to embellish it, and experience a pride and joy in his handiwork. This equally applies to human offspring. How proudly do parents speak of the accomplishments of their sons and daughters!

If we observe the animal kingdom carefully, we will notice the care which natural parents manifest for their young, the sacrifices they will make to obtain a “kill” in order to feed them, and the care they demonstrate by teaching them to fly, hunt, and eat their natural food. Other members of the same species rarely adopt the offspring of another member and then it is only with some suspicion. Moreover, predators know that they must be wary of the parents when approaching a herd to capture an offspring.

From the viewpoint of the child, there is a serious obligation on its parents to provide its nutrition and education while the child has a right to those benefits. This establishes a firm bond between its natural parents and the child.18

HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE

Nothing in such a union can compare with what is outlined above. There is no fortifying bond of two in one flesh realized in the offspring between the members of a homosexual union as is found between a man and a woman. The natural basic appetite (love) is not experienced by at least one of the parents if they adopt a child, even if one does actively or passively generate a child; certainly not the modality of love appropriate to two complementary natures. There can be a great degree of elicited love to be sure. The daily trials of rearing a child as the parents sacrifice their energy, time, and worldly goods to perfect the offspring may not be handled well by at least one of the parents or guardians, certainly not to the same degree as is found with natural parents. Does this not apply equally if not more so to homosexual couples?

The very reason for the existence of marriage is primarily for the sake of the continuation of the species, that is, to produce a fully developed human person. Therefore, if homosexual marriage cannot, of itself, achieve this end, then it does not constitute a valid marriage.

The contemporary idealization of two parents of the same sex as constituting a normal family is quite naíve. There is no balance as required by the child to be found in a “family” with two mothers or two fathers. Are not the terms “father” and “mother” relative terms replacing the terms husband and wife? The latter form the matter of the conjugal society whereas the former constitute the matter of the familial society. The addition of a child changes the conjugal society into a familial society. The terms used, then, denote the relationships involved. Husband and wife signify a relationship between a man and a woman whereas the terms father and mother signify a triangular relationship, that between husband, wife and child. The implication is that each member serves as the source of a particular function in the slow maturation of a child so that the family is not a mere aggregate of human persons.

Since they are wont to have children, we might question why two same gender persons really want a child? Is it similar to a single young woman who has a car, a home, her professional practice and now decides she wants a baby? Is the baby just another possession to display before the world? Is it merely a matter of pride whereby the true good of the child is not considered but the pride of possession reigns supreme? Or is the love, existing between same sex couples, not sufficient and are they feeling the frustration of the inability to reproduce? In any case, the well known seeking of multiple partners, characteristic of homosexuals,19 can be destructive to the relationship just as infidelity is to those in heterosexual relationships.20 If there is a rightly ordered love lacking and there is danger to the security and love needed by a child, then these are a contrary indicator for the existence of homosexual “marriage.” Furthermore, homosexual marriage will not provide offspring for the continuation of the race and therein lies the crux of the matter. For is not the natural end of marriage, new live men and women, precisely what is needed? According to the true natural order, sexual activity and pleasure are merely the means whereby this is achieved.

CONCLUSION

In light of all that is written above, it is not difficult to conclude that a homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. No amount of mental gymnastics will arrive at the acceptance of such a family unit in place of what is normal as set out above. I have heard it claimed that a mother and father are not essential to a marriage; it is asserted that two other persons can equally serve as parents, but it is not difficult to see the operation of a slippery slope argument proposing that two persons of the same gender be married. There is no doubt that two such persons can and do rear a child but can it be said that this is ideal like the natural marriage? Hardly!

Children observe differences, comparing themselves with other children, being aware of existing in a lesser economic environment, and especially of differences in marital status. How harmful these can be in the educative process! Children have been known to raise questions which can cause them stress as they see themselves different from those around them. It is not difficult to visualize the same stress and self-consciousness arising in the soul of a child with two parents of the same sex as they compare their own situation with that of other children. This can only be harmful to the inner life of the developing child. Any harm to the child must be avoided. Therefore, since the end is principle in practical matters21 and the maturation of the child, which includes education in all of its aspects is the obvious end for which the domestic society exists, these harmful consequences of same sex marriage clearly argue against the naturalness of such marriages. If not, then the legitimacy of polygamy must also be admitted.

To conclude, we should hope that the normal marital society will remain the stabilizing unit of civil society whereby the race is continued in its normal mode. No act of the imagination can cause us to believe that homosexual marriage could fulfill this function. At the very least, it inhibits the proper production of mankind. Consequently, every government should ban such a disordered society notwithstanding the recent clamor for its legalization.

ENDNOTES

1. Thomas Higgins, Man as Man. The Science and Art of Ethics (Rockford: Tan, 1992) 65-69.

2. Aristotle, Nic. Ethics (Book VIII, ch. 11-12, St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. 41.

3. S .T. I, q.105, a. 5; Aristotle, op. cit. I, ch. 1-2; T. Higgins, op. cit. 14-15.

4. S.T. Suppl.q.41, a.1; cf. Summa Contra Gentiles III, ch. 122; Thomas Higgins, op. cit.366-369; Michael V. Murray, Problems in Conduct (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963) 224-234; Johannes Messner, Social Ethics (rev. ed. St. Louis: Herder, 1965) 397-398.

5. cf. S.T. I, q. 13, a. 1, ad 1.

6. cf. S.C.G. III, 122; cf. J. Messner, op. cit.

7. cf. T. Higgins, op. cit. 198-201; J. Messner, op. cit. 398.

8. T. Higgins, op. cit., J. Messner, op. cit. 397-412.

9. Jacques Leclercq, Marriage and the Family (2nd .ed., trans. T. Hanley, New York: Frederick Pustet, 1942) 182ff.

10. cf. F. J. Sheed, Society and Sanity (London: Sheed and Ward, 1953) 90-92.

11. J. Messner, op. cit. 408ff.

12. cf .T. Higgins, op. cit. 359-363.

13. The logic of this is well developed by David Carlin, The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2003) ch. 6.

14. cf. Plato’s philosopher kings, e.g., Republic V, 473.

15. Aristotle, op. cit. VIII, ch. 12, 1162a, 19-25; S.T. Suppl. Q.41, a.1; J. Messner, op. cit. 424-426.

16. St. Thomas, S.T. Suppl, q.41, a1; Raphael Waters, “Education: Its Nature and Properties,” Social Justice Review (Nov.-Dec., 1998) 171-174.

17. Aristotle, op. cit. VIII, ch. 12, 1162a, 4-32.

18. Ibid.; S.T. Suppl. q.41, a. 1.

19. Samuel A. Nigro, Homosexuality: A Disease and for Gays A Cult (rev. ed., St. Louis, MO: Social Justice Review, 2002) 4-5; cf. 20-24.

20. M. Murray, op. cit. 225; S.T. Suppl .q. 41; Aristotle, op. cit. VIII, ch. 12, 1162a, 15-16, 26-28.

21. Aristotle, op. cit. I, ch. 1, 2.