The Personalist Project

Some days it feels as if the best we can manage is not to be overwhelmed by the darkness gathering over our society.

I've been debating a nice bi-sexual guy who favors civil unions for gays, because he thinks they offer a way out of the nihilistic hedonism otherwise prevailing in the homosexual subculture. He thinks legal recognition of their relationships will help them by channeling their sexuality toward monogamy.  He is plainly sincere. But to me it is delusional to suppose we can keep the norm of monogamy once the norm of sexual complementarity is abandoned.

Someday I mean to write an article showing that, in its essence and structure, the conjugal union (ordered as it is toward pro-creation, and bringing about, as it does, a male/female human whole) aspires to permanence and monogamy, while homosex, in its essence and structure, is a source of disunity and dissolution, plus deadly disease.

To treat these two kinds of relations as legal equivalents is a radical injustice, not to mention an offense against God—a much, much more serious offense than the Tower of Babel.

I wonder how anyone can imagine we can go on enjoying the blessings of peace and prosperity while we commit blasphemy on an industrial scale.

Comments (1)

Sam Roeble

#1, Mar 21, 2013 11:38am

He thinks legal recognition of their relationships will help them by channeling their sexuality toward monogamy

Interestingly, polygamy lines up nicely with SSM.  The USCCB's letter to SCOTA on DOMA uses the two terms (homosexual unions and polygamy) interchangeably to make a point:

The example of polygamists—a class that is defined in part by conduct—illustrates the point. One can substitute “polygamists” for “homosexuals” as that term is used in the Windsor opinion and arrive at the same conclusion for the former as the Second Circuit did with respect to the latter. Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169, 181-82 (2d Cir. 2012) (“In this case, all four factors justify heightened scrutiny: A) [polygamists] as a group have historically endured persecution and discrimination; B) [polygamy] has no relation to aptitude or ability to contribute to society; C) [polygamists] are a discernible group with non-obvious distinguishing characteristics, especially in the subset of those who enter [polygamous relationships]; and D) the class remains a politically weakened minority.”).

In terms of personalism, the terms seem to be contradictory to persons as ends and not means...

Sign in to add a comment, or register first.

Forgot your password?