E
Epistemes
Guest
So, I’ve been thinking about same-sex marriage a lot lately, especially within the context of why marriage is a sacrament in the first place, and I’m left with some very general observations and conundrums.
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but the essential definition of marriage as a sacrament involves a correspondence between social custom, religious tradition, and cultural integrity. The Church approves of hetereosexual marriage due to the fact that since the dawn of mankind man has always found his perfect complementary mate in woman. Even so, we cannot necessarily call this particular relationship “natural” since nature itself sometimes exhibits qualities of homosexual behavior, and homosexual behavior need not be stigmatized by such perverse labels as “unnatural” – which, of course, is proven to the contrary. Regardless, throughout history, in all cultures, and among the various religions, man will typically seek out a woman, and the union between the two is highly favored. (The question could, of course, be raised as to how much of this perpetuity is the result of conditioned behavior which is therefore reinforced throughout time and consecutive generations, but such questions would be silly since basic biology proves the what primordial man desires in primordial woman: fertility.) Homosexual philanderings, while never uncommon in any time, place, or religion, are typically always shunned, punished, and deeply discouraged.
But why?
Yes, as stated above, man seeks out a woman for the privelege of conjugal union, and from that conjugal union produces the possibility for a legacy and a heritage to be built upon. Men simply must have sons, as history evidences, in order to be strong, honorable, and carry forth the family lineage. And their must be daughters to help produce more daughters and sons. All of this may sound archaic, sexist and derived from the Middle Ages (and by no means do I actually relegate women to such menial positions because I am speaking quite genrically and topically here), but isn’t this because the core family structure has rapidly changed as a result of industrilization and economic convenience?
My point is this: Nine times out of ten, and really more than that, a heterosexual union is going to take place – and for every homosexual union that does, in fact, transpire, there will be twenty times as many Catholic families birthing all across the globe. The threat of homosexuality is the annihiliation of a species; it is extinction. If God designed man to copulate with man, or woman with woman, biologically disallowing birth, then we would’ve been caput very early on. But is this seriously a valid threat? I, personally, hardly think so. The threat of human annihilation is much more likely to come from the far more statistically significant environmentally unfriendly hetereosexuals than from a dozen or a hundred same-sex couples uniting in whatever way they unite.
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but the essential definition of marriage as a sacrament involves a correspondence between social custom, religious tradition, and cultural integrity. The Church approves of hetereosexual marriage due to the fact that since the dawn of mankind man has always found his perfect complementary mate in woman. Even so, we cannot necessarily call this particular relationship “natural” since nature itself sometimes exhibits qualities of homosexual behavior, and homosexual behavior need not be stigmatized by such perverse labels as “unnatural” – which, of course, is proven to the contrary. Regardless, throughout history, in all cultures, and among the various religions, man will typically seek out a woman, and the union between the two is highly favored. (The question could, of course, be raised as to how much of this perpetuity is the result of conditioned behavior which is therefore reinforced throughout time and consecutive generations, but such questions would be silly since basic biology proves the what primordial man desires in primordial woman: fertility.) Homosexual philanderings, while never uncommon in any time, place, or religion, are typically always shunned, punished, and deeply discouraged.
But why?
Yes, as stated above, man seeks out a woman for the privelege of conjugal union, and from that conjugal union produces the possibility for a legacy and a heritage to be built upon. Men simply must have sons, as history evidences, in order to be strong, honorable, and carry forth the family lineage. And their must be daughters to help produce more daughters and sons. All of this may sound archaic, sexist and derived from the Middle Ages (and by no means do I actually relegate women to such menial positions because I am speaking quite genrically and topically here), but isn’t this because the core family structure has rapidly changed as a result of industrilization and economic convenience?
My point is this: Nine times out of ten, and really more than that, a heterosexual union is going to take place – and for every homosexual union that does, in fact, transpire, there will be twenty times as many Catholic families birthing all across the globe. The threat of homosexuality is the annihiliation of a species; it is extinction. If God designed man to copulate with man, or woman with woman, biologically disallowing birth, then we would’ve been caput very early on. But is this seriously a valid threat? I, personally, hardly think so. The threat of human annihilation is much more likely to come from the far more statistically significant environmentally unfriendly hetereosexuals than from a dozen or a hundred same-sex couples uniting in whatever way they unite.