Same-sex Nonsense (and NFP Too)

Those who have read any of my writings know that I am quite conservative. My viewpoints, which once constituted reasonable thought amongst a majority of men and women, are now clutched to my a distinctly small minority in this country. Buchanan bemoans this very thing: “Nietzsche called this the transvaluation of all values; the old virtues become sin and the old sins become virtues.” I will not dwell on the social factors that have led to this, but will rather outline and back up my belief system.

One of the biggest misunderstandings raging in America concerns human sexuality. Once deemed abhorrent, homosexuality is now considered acceptable by a growing number of Americans. Contraception, which was at one point rejected by every major Christian faith, is now defended against by only the Roman Catholic Church and a decided minority of her members. In fact, surveys put the number of married American Catholics who do not practice some form of birth control—other than the Church accepted Natural Family Planning—at about 4 percent.

In order to understand why homosexuality and contraception are wrong, I must lay out the Catholic views on sex. In 1968, Pope Paul VI came out with the encyclical Humanae Vitae confirming the Church's position on human sexuality. According to the Roman Catholic Church, sex had two purposes: unity, and procreation.

The first purpose is pretty obvious. Sex is a powerful act and the two participants are drawn closer together because of it. It is, partly because of this power, that the Church has consecrated sex only for marriage, but more on that later.

The second purpose is rather evident. Without procreation, the human race would cease to be. God has provided for, in sex, the vehicle through which humans will be disseminated. “God blessed them, saying: 'Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.'” (Genesis 1:28) By telling us to be fertile and multiply God is giving a stamp of approval on sex, when used for the procreative purpose it was intended for.

Isn't there another purpose though? Sex is pleasurable, and many may argue that this too is a purpose. To which I would ask: “What is the purpose of eating?” or “What is the purpose of sleeping?” Eating and sleeping are necessary if humans are to continue to exist. Eating provides nourishment and sleeping provides rest. Sleeping, eating and sex are all pleasurable because God, in his wisdom, made them this way. If they were not enjoyable we would not have done them, and the human race would be consequently extinct.

Pleasure is a kind side affect, but it is no more the reason for eating and sleeping than it is for having sex. After all, if all we did all day was eat and sleep, we wouldn't be very healthy. Sex, too, has natural consequences built into it, namely pregnancy. Humans could not have sex all the time unless they wished to have children. Birth control has minimized, though not eliminated this risk, but sex still has consequences, which I shall address a bit later.

One could infer from my analogy, that since if we do not eat and sleep we will die, if we do not have sex we will die. Thus, abstinence is unhealthy and birth control allows us to have sex, as necessary to life as eating and sleeping. It is true that if one goes without eating and/or sleeping one will die. Likewise, without sex, human life will cease, so we need it to live, although I am unaware of anyone who has died as a result of abstaining from sex. Furthermore, abstinence is not sexual repression, but acceptance of God's gift of sex and His desire for it's use in the correct context of marriage.

Marriage was instituted by God to provide for mankind the best way to perpetuate itself. “The Lord God said: 'It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him.' The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be a suitable partner for the man.” (Genesis 2:18, 20) Thus God created the woman, Eve, to be a partner for the man, Adam. “He said in reply, 'Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?” (Matthew 19:4-5)

This is all well and good for those who believe in the Judeo-Christian creator God, but it should be just as apparent to non-believers as well. As procreation takes a man and a woman and unity is enhanced through sex, marriage between man and woman is a natural institution.

What good then does it do for two homosexuals to become married? The sexual act will of course unify the two, but without the ability for procreation, the act is intrinsically infertile. Thus, if the purpose of sex is procreative, homosexual sex is both impractical and immoral.

It is important to draw a distinction between homosexuals and homosexual behavior. Christians are called to obey the two greatest commandments, “He said in reply, 'You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.'” (Luke 10:27) Jesus calls His followers to love everyone unconditionally as He did.

Unconditional love does not mean acceptance of immoral behavior. When Jesus caught the woman in adultery, He did love her, but he didn't allow her to go on her way without improving. Under Jewish law, she was to be stoned to death for he sin. “Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' She replied, 'No one sir.' Then Jesus said, 'Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on do not sin any more.'” (John 8:10-11)

Some may say that because Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, it must not be sinful. This is an absurd argument. He never mentioned abortion either, although Jesus would of course be very much against abortion. There are chastisements of sexual immorality in the Bible. “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination. Everyone who does any of these abominations shall be cut off from among his people.” (Leviticus 18:22,29)

The New Testament mentions homosexual behavior as well. “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolators nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will ever inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) “[Or] do you not know that anyone who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For 'the two', it says, 'will become one flesh.' (1 Corinthians 6:16) “Let marriage be honored among all of and the marriage bed be kept undefiled, for God will judge the immoral and adulterers.” (Hebrews 13:4) “Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own person the due penalty for their perversity.” (Romans 1:26-27)

It is readily apparent that St. Paul was against sex outside of marriage especially homosexual relations. Still, should the fact that Jesus did not mention this sway us? Of course not. Jesus spoke to Jews who were familiar with Jewish law, which clearly prohibits homosexual behavior. The Corinthians and the Romans were not familiar with Jewish law and because of this, Paul had to enlighten them.

Those who curse homosexuals and urge God's wrath upon them are doing all of us a disservice. The only consistent Christian position on homosexuality is one of disdain for the act. However, this must be coupled with a love for the people. After all, if homosexuality is a serious sin—and indeed it is—how much more are practicing homosexuals in need of our love and prayers?

In today's world, it is increasingly considered intolerant to deem certain behavior immoral. Christians may be told to follow Jesus' advice and “Stop judging, that you may not be judged.” (Matthew 7:1) Yet if homosexuality is indeed a sin and sodomites will not inherit the kingdom of God, it is surely worse not to speak up. Our love for others compels us to help our brothers and sisters to reach God's kingdom. As Christians we cannot watch idly as our neighbors falter.

Close in connection with homosexuality, is contraception. Both are immoral because they render, or at least attempt to render, the sexual act infertile. Fertility is a gift from God. Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, was barren for a long time before she conceived John. “'So has the Lord done for me at a time when he has seen fit to take away my disgrace before others.'” (Luke 1:25) At the time, it was believed—falsely—that the reason a woman was infertile was that she or her husband had sinned against God. Conversely, woman who were fertile were seen to be good. Children were correctly understood to be a gift from God.

Society has certainly turned this one on it's head. Children are now considered secondary to having a job. Since women desire to work, and yet still want to have sex, the pill has seemed like an immense gift. The pill allows women the “freedom” to put off having children until it is convenient. This freedom comes at a great price however. Contraceptive sex makes an emphatic no to God's will. “Do you think it right to say, 'I am just rather than God?'” (Job 35:2) For that is what contraception does.

Contraception says to God, I want the unity and the pleasure but not the procreation. God is not invited because He is wrong. We reason that sex should be for our pleasure and we do not need Him. God brings pregnancy which only complicates our lives. We will have children when we want to. After all, we cannot afford to have twelve children. Although I do find it hard to believe that the richest nation on earth cannot afford to raise its children, the point, though presented in an extreme form, is a valid one.

There are two replies I wish to make to those who argue that for personal reasons contraception is acceptable. First, have you no faith in God? Surely He will not bless a couple with so many pregnancies that the children will starve. Also, if a couple does not wish to have kids, why would you have sex?

This should be practical and logical, but is seen as archaically oppressive instead. Self-discipline, once honored as a virtue is now deplored as not needed. Yet, if I cannot swim, I do not jump into the sea. Why do we have sex if pregnancy is not wanted? I can't possibly be so callous as to wish to prohibit all sex within a marriage can I? No, and again, God has provided an answer. Catholics call it natural family planning, or NFP.

The way NFP works is that it determines when a woman is likely to be pregnant and when she will not be fertile. The specifics involve the mucus surrounding the woman's reproductive organ and may be researched if that is wished. The obvious benefit of NFP is that if a husband and a wife cannot have a child at the moment—according to Pope Pius XII, for “medical, eugenical, economic, and social order” reasons—the couple may abstain from sex during those times where the wife is fertile. They can still, in good conscience participate in sex during the infertile times of the month.

What is the difference though? If contraception is immoral because it renders the act infertile how come it is okay to participate in sex during the infertile times without damage to the soul? The difference is simple. With contraception, humans are playing God and choosing to render the act infertile on their own. With NFP, couples are abstaining when God has blessed the woman with fertility. God has provided, through the natural rhythms of a woman's cycle, time for a couple to engage in sex without procreation. He realized that it would be stupid to expect two people who love each other from having sex for all of eternity. Sex is a powerful binding force and God wishes husband and wife to be unified in Him.

That being said, it is clear that NFP is meant only for extreme matters. A couple should not abuse this in order to actually plan their family. The role of NFP is to provide a means for unity and a protection from insanity and irritability if it will be too difficult for the couple to have a child at the present time. In faith, a married couple should trust God to give them as many children as they can handle in accordance with his plan.

Part of the reason birth control has become so acceptable is that certain people—Malthus and Ehrlich—predicted that the world population was becoming too large. Our food supply could not keep up with the population boom and mass starvation was ahead. Malthus and Ehrlich were wrong, of course, but their advice was heeded. No longer are large families the norm, as most couples have one to three children in America and the Western world. Even Catholic Italy has a birth rate below that of replacement level—a birth rate 2.1 children per couple is needed to sustain population.

While this was undertaken in some respects for a good reason—no one wants mass starvation—it againg showed the lack of faith we have in God. What kind of God would allow His people to be fertile and multiply and then allow them to perish by starvation? “'Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself.'” (Matthew 6:34) If that is not evidence that God is looking out for us, then nothing is.

Another claim people make regarding NFP is that it is unreliable. Fortunately, they are wrong. This is not your grandmother's “rhythm method”. NFP has a .004% failure rate. This is not only not unreliable, but actually more reliable than conventional birth control. The failure rate is statistically insignificant. God does indeed know best.

Perhaps it will be acknowledged that I was thorough in my defense of the Catholic faith, but I did use Scripture to do it. This is to help my fellow Christians, but what about agnostics and atheists? This circular logic will probably not hold much weight with them. The only meaningful argument is that NFP is more reliable than birth control. Yet I doubt that will sway many. The major draw of birth control is that it allows us to have what we want when we want it. NFP offers no such luxury.

I'm not going to confront atheists and agnostics. My arguments against homosexual conduct and use of birth control are primarily of a moral nature. While atheists and agnostics often have a moral guide, it is impossible for me to formulate an argument for every possible value system. Instead, I offer the Judeo-Christian tradition as my background and defend from there. As a majority of Americans are Christians, this should have some affect upon them. Of course, all too often, our pursuit of God rings just as hollow as our lifestyles.

Inherent in the Christian religion is the belief that God's will is more important than ours. We serve Him first. “Yet I live, no longer I, but Chirst lives in me.” (Galatians 2:20) If we are living for God, we should have no trouble accepting children in marriage. It is only when we are selfish that we reject God's plan. It is time Christians stopped neglecting God and turned to Him. Out country and our children need Him more than ever.