by John Pacheco
From time immemorial, marriage has always been understood as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all other relationships. First and foremost, such a union results in the procreation of the human race - the most fundamental and necessary component of society's existence. Secondly, as study after study has confirmed, the traditional family provides the most stable and nurturing environment for the social, psychological, spiritual, and emotional needs of children. There is no authentic substitute for this since it has been revealed in the natural law itself. And, deep down, everyone knows this truth - it is engraved on every human conscience on the planet. The very reason such a union has survived throughout the centuries - while others have not - is because it reflects the natural order which God has created. When man tries to socially engineer a union - such as the homosexual one, and make a pretense that it is just as valid or sublime as an authentic marriage - it is doomed to failure. Such a union does not fail because it is has been introduced into a society which is intolerant or seeks to squash its expression. From history, we know that this is simply not true. The homosexual communities within ancient Greek civilizations simply died out, being unable to sustain or propagate themselves. And they ended up bringing down a whole culture with them. The failure of homosexually permissive societies, therefore, is not political, social, or ideological at all.
Its failure is refusing to accept that the homosexual act is against human nature itself. It is against the most fundamental and intrinsic part of our being which, when expressed sexually, is to create. A man having anal intercourse with another man cannot create new life. The act is closed to creation. This is why homosexual sex is wrong. But someone will object: not all heterosexual couples can procreate. Does that make their sexual act wrong? By no means. We are talking about the male and female sex generally and not individual couples who, because of a biological misfortune, cannot conceive. If our opponents wanted to dispute this argument, they would have to concede that there could never be an exception to even any mere civil law - a proposition which is clearly absurd. The exception does not establish the rule but only seeks to highlight it all the more. The goodness of the act, therefore, is determined by the general physiological composition of the male and female sexes. As such, all things being equal, only sex between a man and a woman is licit because it, and it alone, is open to human life. On the other hand, homosexual sex, in its general form, is fundamentally closed to human life as a rule, without even considering any exceptions. The homosexualist's puerile reconstruction of the basic sex act, therefore, is a futile attempt to deny the most essential and fundamental truth of human physiology. It rejects the simple complimentarity between the sexes. A bolt and a nut go together to accomplish a purpose in basic mechanics. Two bolts do not and cannot do so.
The sexual act has two purposes: to procreate and to unite. From this flows a wonderful consequence of the sexual union, which, of course, is the sexual orgasm. This was its design from the beginning. The climax of the sexual act is meant to physically reflect the spiritual joy over the creation act which a man and a woman participate in. None of these characteristics of the sexual act, however, can be separated from one another. One cannot legitimately separate the purposes of the sexual act from each other or from the consequent of the act. In other words, in the natural law, God has revealed that you cannot have sex just for the pleasure. This rules out contraception and homosexual acts. You cannot have sex for pleasure and procreation without the intent of uniting yourself with the other person. This rules out fornication. And you should not have sex without working to make sure your partner has a pleasurable experience. This rules out selfish sexual gratification (especially for men).
The sexual act is a sacred and noble thing. It is a sublime participation in the creation and propagation of the human race for the greater glory of God, and as such, it cannot be morally manipulated or interrupted in any way. Its attributes cannot be pulled apart and arbitrarily heightened (i.e. pleasure) at the expense of the very purpose of the act itself. The suppression of any element of the act results in a disortion of its role in building up the family and society. It is a vicious reconstruction of the creative act which mankind has been entrusted with, and it is a direct assault on the image of God Himself. Despite our efforts, it does not matter whether we seek to change man's image. The image of man has already been set. We cannot change it. If our culture attempts to do so, only disintegration and degeneration awaits it. And this is a sober reminder to our so-called great "patriotic" social engineers who spare not a moment in cheaply wrapping themselves in the Canadian flag. Marriage and families provide the very reason why government exists. As this foundation comes under attack and begins to disintegrate, the traditional family, as we understand it today, will as well. If we can tell ourselves that it's acceptable to divorce one another, what makes us foolishly think that our country can stay together when our marriages cannot? If we can tell ourselves that abortion is a "noble choice", then what makes us naively think that our whole federation cannot be dismembered as well? And if we can tell ourselves that a man can marry a man, why can't he marry two men or three?
Canada, you've killed the children in your womb. You've undermined and manipulated marriage. You have turned your back on the heritage that built you. And now? Now you are going to get what you want: the death and annhilation of a culture and a civilization. Barring Canadians actually giving a damn about the state of the family in this country, I give this federation 25 years. Tops. That will be a nice round number. We'll let Chretien finish the job that Trudeau started.
July 20, 2006
John Pacheco is a social conservative activist and writer. He is the director of Social Conservatives United, a network of social conservative groups seeking cultural and political change in Canada.