Sexuality Meant For Marriage, Procreation

To the editors:

On reading the op-ed by Ryan R. Thoreson ’07 (“Speaking Out Against Homophobia,” April 23) on the homosexual speak-out, I fully agreed with his claim that it is important to “share our reactions” and have a substantive, meaningful dialogue on the subject. Unfortunately, it seems that the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) and other similar organizations’ commitment to such discussion stops when faced with a real, substantive objection. It is true that throughout history many taboos have been overcome and rightly gained wide acceptance, including women’s suffrage and the interactions of different races. However, it is also painfully obvious that American culture is showing itself far too ready to accept “progressive” and “inclusive” ideals indiscriminately. When we are faced with the question of homosexuality, rather than rushing to be the first to desensitize society to this phenomenon, we should ask ourselves why it was taboo in the first place.

How we deal with homosexuality depends entirely on the purpose of our sexuality. Human sexuality, as we ourselves experience, is an amazingly powerful means of communion. The reason that so many are devastated by extra-maritial sexual relationships is because we misuse and degrade our humanity by trespassing the bounds in which the gift of our sexuality was given. We exchange our inherently human gift, the image in which we were created, for a dark, destructive emptiness. Sexual relationships necessarily involve the communion of the whole person, and many discover first-hand the terrible consequences of its misuse.

Homosexuality is not a hypothetical issue—it is a real and present topic that we must address. And we have a responsibility to do so honestly, in a spirit of love, and with all of humanity in mind. In this spirit, we observe that in our sexuality is found the means for creating our greatest gift—life itself. In it is found the most intimate communion that a man and woman can achieve. For millennia, cultures have protected marriage because they recognized the stability that was afforded by the healthy sexual union of a man and woman. When sex is tragically separated from the union of marriage, however, it is empirically a source of destruction, corruption and decay. Nor is this an accident, for it is the greatest good which can be the most catastrophically corrupted.

In the words of the scholar Alexander Schmemann, “It is not because it gives life that love is good: it is because it is good that it gives life.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “Homosexuality closes the sexual act to the gift of life and does not proceed from a genuine and affective sexual complementarity.” In light of the nature and design of our human sexuality, we must affirm in a spirit of undying love our commitment to opposing any action which sanctions or encourages behavior which degrades and dehumanizes our sexuality. No “progressive” or “inclusive” ideas will ever justify exchanging our humanity for something less.

PHILIP D. POWELL ’06

April 25, 2004