Defining Sexuality and Marriage

I continue my anniversary reflection by examining some recent major news stories on sexuality. The California Supreme Court recently ruled that homosexuals had the right to live in officially recognized unions, despite the defeat of referendums creating such official recognition. The second story is the ongoing saga of the raid on the Mormon polygamist sect.

A comment on a Catholic blog (sorry, I lost track of which one) made the interesting claim that our culture's distaste for the polygamist Mormon sect was not so much the polygamy involved, but the marriage. I'm not sure I'd go quite so far - yet, but it's an interesting comentary. David Mills writing on Inside Catholic Made an equally interesting and more believable connection between the California Supreme Court ruling and the polygamy case. He makes a "slippery slope" argument, stating that increased acceptance of homosexuality will lead naturally to an increased acceptance of polygamy, and eventual acceptance of other forms of sex currently considered taboo. He already sees it happening in the Unitarian church:

A few years ago, a group called Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness declared that they wanted to "take their place beside the divorced, the intentionally single, gays and lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people as fully accepted people." They defined "polyamory" as "the philosophy and practice of loving or relating intimately to more than one person at a time with honesty and integrity."

Is the slippery slope argument just a scare tactic? There is a legitimate connection between forms of sexualitly the Catholic Church judges to be sinful. This connection comes from the definitions of sexuality and marriage.

Sexuality is the ability to give and receive life-giving love as male or female. In a general sense, our sexuality is part of our identity. As such, it is part of every relationship in which we participate - wether with the same sex or with the opposite sex. However, when our sexuality is practiced in its fullness the life-giving power of the sexual act becomes a major consideration. Our sexuality exists for the purpose of creating new life within an enviroment of committed love. Marriage guarantees that committed relationship so that the spouses will love rather than use each other and so that all family members will have the stability that nurtures trust, intimacy and care for one another. In society, marriage is identified as the best place for the conception, nurturing and education of children. That is why marriage has been given a favored status by society - it is protected as a valuable and essential institution. When we redefine sexuality and marriage, taking reproduction out of the definition and relegating it to an option, we open the door for any act of pleasure to become acceptable. Daid Mills looks at the modern redefinition of sexuality held by the typical liberal:

He believes that sex and marriage are primarily modes of self-actualization, and that they depend upon a continuing mutual commitment. He believes that sexual desire (for an adult, anyway) is part of "who you are," and that a man must be able to act upon his desires if humanly possible.

If the main purpose of sexual interaction is self-fulfillment, what form of sexuality can be argued against? Pedophiles argue that their relationship with children is loving and fulfilling for the adult and the child. Polygamists argue that their relationships are loving and fulfilling. Who is to argue that their form of self-expression and self-actualiation is wrong? You lose the definition of sex and marriage, you lose the standard by which to measure what is acceptable and what is not.

Hearing all this, the polyamorist naturally demands the right to "relate" (now there's a euphemism) to more than one person at a time. It is what he wants, what fulfills him, part of "Who I am." In insisting that one ought to have sex only with someone for whom one has forsaken all others, the sexual liberal is, on his own grounds, just clinging to a tradition and to social mores he does not believe in. The polyamorist takes the liberal's principles and draws the logical conclusion.

It all comes down to moral reasoning and acknowledgement of the objective nature of sex and marriage. That is the only way we can avoid the slippery slope. Marriage and sex are great gifts - having children is a great gift (I say that on the day after a weekend at Grandma and Granpa's house when both of my children are wining and crabbing all day long). When we abuse or sacrifice these gifts, we open the door to abusing and sacrificing each other.