I will quote some parts of
this article.
Recently, Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher reviewed the published literature on marriage and presented their findings in a book entitled “The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially.” The evidence is clear. Married people are better off than single or divorced people. The better the marriage, the stronger the “marriage effect” on physical and mental health, longevity, and prosperity.
Heterosexual marriage has these benefits, and it is what the scientific studies have looked at. Heterosexual couples who cohabitate - who live together without marriage - do not enjoy most of these benefits of marriage, and there is no data showing similar benefits for same-sex couples. We don’t know whether same-sex couples would enjoy any of these benefits, and there are reasons to think they would not.
There is evidence that sexual complementarity is necessary. Philosophers have written that loneliness is part of the human condition and that loneliness occurs because, deep down, we all realize that neither a man by himself nor a woman by herself is biologically completely human. Each lacks the perfections and capabilities of the opposite sex, and in that sense each is incomplete-and lonely-without the other. Psychologists have shown that men and women differ in aggression and general activity level, types of cognitive strength, sensory sensitivity, and sexual behavior. These differences matter both spiritually and physically, for without the complementarity between a man and a woman on all these levels, the deepest forms of union are not possible.
Furthermore, sexual complementarity between man and woman makes possible another feature of marriage: the giving of life. The love between man and woman is designed to call new human life into existence and in so doing make the shared life of the couple more abundantly fulfilling. It does not always produce new life, but that is what it is designed to do. Unfortunately this aspect is blurred in the modern-day experience of marriage as two mortal blows have been struck: contraception and abortion. Only holy matrimony as preserved for centuries in the Church teaches these basic tenets as essential aspects - from this in fact comes the very term “matrimony”, incorporating the words “mother” and “task”. This union was intrinsically oriented towards the giving of life, and dignified the spouse and the mother.
Sexuality has two aspects: the procreative (bringing forth children) and the unitive (strengthening the union of the couple). Artificially separating the unitive from the procreative brings discord to a marriage, distorts the relationship between husband and wife, and ends up harming their unity as spouses. There is a disturbing parallel to same-sex marriage in the situation of couples who simply choose not to have children. In the sexual act, the language of the body says, “I give myself to you completely, without reservation or condition.” But sometimes that statement is a lie. Sometimes one or both do not give themselves completely to the other but instead use the other selfishly, as a pleasure object.
Marriage is about more than just the feelings of two people. Feelings are important, but they aren’t the whole of it. We all know that feelings change and that any marriage has its ups and downs. Marriage does involve very personal feelings, but this does not mean that it is merely a private matter. Whether it succeeds or fails, a marriage has a huge impact on the couple, their children, those around them, and the entire society. And it takes more than emotions to hold a marriage together.
I conclude with a word of warning: many today speak of a “right” to marry, yet few realize that the very act of re-definition of marriage is extremely harmful to family and society. Just look at what legal divorce and abortion have accomplished. The fight of “L” and G" for a further re-definition of marriage to include “two consenting adults” is a crack in an already unstable dam: for it will be only a matter of times before the “B” brings forth the case that someone who is attracted to both a male and a female has the right to have two partners and marry them, as long as there is mutual consent. This will strike at the last valid tenet of marriage: monogamy. And I believe it is only a matter of time before we get there.
As for the argument that “we are just telling not to love”, it reminds me of the trailer of a recent comedy in which someone, told that company rules do not allow for dating, asks: “Does a one-night stand constitute dating?” and then: “So we are saying no to love?” I think the word does not mean what we think it means. Love is not just love. I love my parents, my girlfriend, my brothers in the faith, what I study, what I ate for lunch, as well as my computer. When I love a spouse, that is a very, very special love. Anyone who thinks that teaching our children to avoid premarital or extramarital sexual intercourse is telling not to love clearly has not understood the love that constitutes someone’s calling to marriage - where by marriage I mean holy matrimony, and not the relativist trend of this or that time and culture.
