Replies

I mean that the word “love” is like catnip to the public at large. The gays have only to say that one should have the right to choose whom to love, and since love and marriage, as the song goes, go together like a horse and carriage, then it is east to say that one ought to be able to marry whom one chooses. Without much exception, I might add. Speaking of, love is the essential ingredient of any true marriage. But although impediments to the marriage of minds ought to be few, there are physical impediments to matrimony. The very word invokes the limitation. But same-sex marriage ignores that limitation. Indeed, it is the attitude that ignores in all cases, the physical impediments and all moral impediments. There is a reason that Dante put “Romeo and Juliet” in hell, because the people of the Middle Age were much more aware of things, such as that animals in heat copulate, with no particular merit being assigned to it. That the copulation of two human beings was more important because it shares in the creation of a being like themselves, their being there image of God. Now there is nothing wrong with an ardent friendship between two men or two women, but it is surely some thing different from the relationship between a man and his wife. The latter requires sexual relations albeit with the consent of both parties. Does the former? In the year 100+N.F. (after Freud) the public seems to think so. These may be relations more like that between a man and a whore than between a man and a wife, not as an exception but as a norm. So how does the Holy Father and his party —I dare say so—hope to save any sense of the specialness of matrimony if they by implication say there is something also special —something beyond the limits of personal friendship—about homosexual relationships? We cannot go back to the old anti-sodomy laws any more than we can the old witchcraft laws, but their lack of merit does not mean there is any merit in the physical coupling of two men.