On Homosexuality and Gay Marriage

I’ve said elsewhere, that I was raised Catholic and as such, was given the upbringing that such supposes. Basically, I was raised to believe that everything sexual is sinful. I really believed that growing up and didn’t really question it until I got to college. I looked for a justification for that belief for a long time, but I never did find a truly intellectually satisfying answer. Well, at least not a knock-down flat irrefutable argument that having sex was committing a grievous sin.

That said, with respect to heterosexual sex, I think an argument can be made that sex outside of marriage is less responsible than sex in marriage. But I’d have a hard time calling it evil, unlike abortion. Still, it’s not like this is even considered an issue anymore. Birth control is here, and most people have sex outside of marriage.

Then there’s homosexuality and gay marriage. Call me homophobic, if you like, but the thought of two guys having sex makes me go “ick” (Sorry, it just does). That said, it doesn’t affect me, so I don’t think I should have any say over the matter. There is one slight issue that I’d like to clarify, though: namely, that the homosexual act is an act, and as such it does fall in the category of things that could be labeled right or wrong. Because of this, I understand that being against homosexual acts is different from something like racism. Being black isn’t an “act,” it’s a property, so it doesn’t make sense to condemn it as sinful. Being homosexual implies, or at least, leads to, the homosexual act. And it is the act that the Church regards as sinful. A homosexual man who does not engage in homosexual acts is not committing homosexual sins, according to the Church—and the church has no problem with such a man. As they say, “Love the sinner, not the sin.” Most people in the West agreed with that assessment for thousands of years. It was only recently that views began to change.

As far as gay marriage is concerned, if it were up to me, I’m not entirely sure—so don’t leave it up to me. I’ve gone back and forth over this issue several times. When I was young, I was against it. Later, I was for it. Now, I recognize some of the wisdom of the against position again. Basically, I don’t think it is helping the disintegration of the traditional family. Still, it’s not my life and that’s an entirely intellectual argument and not an emotional one. Emotional arguments seem to be carrying the day, lately. No one wants their gay son or gay friend to be unable to marry the person they love. And I can understand that.

Personally, what I think we should do, is have government get out of the marriage business entirely. No Justice of the Peace. No marriage. As far as the state is concerned, it should only recognize civil unions. We should leave marriage in the hands of the religious organizations where it more rightly belongs. So, if two men or two women want to get married, all they have to do is find a church willing to perform the service. If we don’t do this, or something similar, we run the risk of entering an era of renewed religious persecution. As a Catholic, I can tell you, the Church will never change its position on this. And if you try to cram it down its throat, you will be in the wrong. I heard on the radio that in Idaho, the state is already trying to force a religious organization (a chapel run by two pastors) to marry same-sex couples. That is a violation of the constitution and freedom of religion. We don’t want to go down that path; we have to change course before it is too late.

One last point, a number of states have amended their constitutions to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Consistently, the courts have over-ruled this. Personally, I think that is an affront to the democratic process. I agree with Mark Levin: the courts don’t have the right to just throw out the will of the people. That is the beginnings of tyranny. And with Idaho, perhaps Tyranny is already here.

For more on the Idaho situation: click here.


4 thoughts on “On Homosexuality and Gay Marriage

  1. Not quite tyranny: the Hitching post is a business, not a religious organisation. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/is-a-church-being-forced_b_6019354.html

    Tyranny would be the majority allowed to repress the minority, whether by vote or otherwise, which is why the Constitution prevents it. Listen to Judge Richard Posner, appointed by Ronald Reagan. http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/08/27/listen_to_judge_richard_posner_destroy_arguments_against_gay_marriage.html


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s