DOES GOD BLESS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?

Francis IKHIANOSIME No era, at least with records from the last three decades has recorded wild-spre ad discussions marked with fevered sentiments on issues of homosexuality, gay-ma rriage and gay rights like ours. This is so because, these issues nip on very de licate areas of our social life, communal values and even the integrity of the h uman person. Essentially, they are issues which oscillate between spirituality a nd Law; psychology and Ethics. In South Africa, the issue has even taken a new w ave and toll. There is the issue now of corrective rape; a criminal practice whe reby lesbian women are raped by men, sometimes under supervision by members of t heir families or local communities, purportedly as a means of curing them of their homosexuality. So, the difficulty gets bigger and bigger by the day. We are the refore compelled to go back to the drawing board, at least from scriptures to be gin to ask about the right dictates of marriage. We are moved to look into the c onvoluted and very often incorrect logic of pro-homosexual activists who make a case for same-sex marriage. The reasons homosexuality is frowned at and why issu es of gay rights are found to be with a poor foundation are not farfetched. The question we must belabor however is: Does God bless same-sex marriage the same w ay He blessed man-woman marriage? Homosexuality according to Wikipedia is a romantic or sexual attraction or behavi or between members of the same sex or gender. It is equally one of the main cate gories of sexual orientation (the other two being bisexuality and heterosexualit y) which refers to an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual af fection or romantic attractions primarily or exclusively to people of the same s ex. Homosexual people are commonly termed lesbians for women and gay for men. Gay however is more generic to refer to both male and female homosexuals. By this u nderstanding therefore, gay marriage is a marriage that pursues partnership with a member of the same sex. Homosexuality is generally an unacceptable social beh aviour and it is seen as an activity that debases the integrity of the human per son and been very opposed to the Natural Law. It is also viewed to be opposed to human and Christian values, common ethics and societal values. It is common und erstanding as an activity that is self-annihilating and equally threatens the fu ture of society. While Christianity is strongly opposed to homosexuality, psycho logy seem not only to encourage it but also lends strength to it by holding that it is an example of normal variation in human sexuality and not a source of neg ative psychological effects. Homosexuality is argued both by homosexuals and pro-homosexual activists as an o rientation and not merely a behavior. This argument is often spiraled by the cla im that for us to know much about homosexuality, we must get talking with homose xuals. Many homosexuals themselves have identified that they are capable of soun d spirituality like any other Christian and their sexual leaning is not a fault of theirs but an inherited or a genetic tendency. Homosexuals argue from a sound psychological position that everyone has all the main sexual orientations: homo sexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality sometimes considered the fourth but that one is often prominent and that is the one manifested by the ind ividual. Following this argument, every individual has an inclination or capabil ity towards any of these but seeks only to practice that which is dominant and s o, his practice is not necessarily informed by society but by his unique sexual orientation. Homosexuals take on this position to validate their practice. This appears to be the strongest argument for homosexuality that sometimes may evoke sympathy and may even lead to the temptation of accepting this aberrant behavior as not culpable. Homosexuals who take their position a step too far into marriage argue that rist-centered relationship irrespective of the gender is the most important g rather than a monogamous marriage without Christ. The foundations for gay iage seek to defend that there are no specific things that can be done in a a Ch thin marr hete

rosexual marriage which could not be done in a homosexual marriage. I studied th e arguments for homosexual marriages and all seek to give first a heavy condemna tion to modern straight marriages. It claims that in the light of the failures o f straight marriages today, homosexual marriages have come to the rescue of the marriage institution. Homosexuals argue that many modern marriages are falling a part because they are not properly founded. The question that is often asked is what use is marriage when the life of love is apparently dead? Homosexuals say, love doesnt define marriage if it does, many marriages today would not pass for o ne. It often argues further that if marriage is properly based on love and not j ust on a social standing, then, the institution of marriage would have been save d. Equally, from my study of their arguments, it is clear that their understanding of marriage does not square with our traditional view. Homosexuals see marriage from the points of view of an investment, a contract, love-sharing, partnership, etc. While for the most, this understanding of marriage is correct, it is incom plete or one-sided. Pro-homosexual arguments seem to be more apologetic and reac tionary than being intrinsically viable; they have no strong basis other than a response to their attacks. Again, it is almost clear that homosexuals seem to ar gue more from the point of a right than from spirituality or Ethics. Pro-homosex uals are often liberal Christians or none whose position about matters of morals are liberal to a fault. Further, Homosexuals seem to be building a strong force. Today, we have homosexu al theologians who defend the copious and explicit biblical passages that are op posed to homosexuality in their self-styled hermeneutics. Some of the interpreta tion advanced counter traditional explanation and they have termed theirs, a ref ormed interpretation. So, it becomes not as easy to condemn homosexuals just bec ause the bible puts it that way. Homosexuals take us to task to identify the rea l scriptural oppositions. They argue that there were no homosexual unions explai ned in the Bible because it was not the issues of that time. Again, they seem to hinge on the shift in understanding of the sanctity of marriage and the sex rem ains exclusive preserve of those married as a stale belief being drastically rej ected by many protestant and left to be maintained by Catholics because of their pedigree in conservatism. But, these positions, refutations of the homosexuals cannot be all said to be valid as claimed. Equally, the refutation of the tradit ional positions has not nullified the validity and strength of these arguments b ut granted we would go through them again in proper presentation. Overt homosexual activities are not issues for the Oriental world alone. They ha ve been budded in Africa and even Nigeria. Homosexuals living in Nigeria recentl y advanced a course for recognition, non-discrimination and a legalization of th eir marital unions even though as a multi-ethnic and religious nation there is a general abhorrence of such and like acts. One can generally understand the reas on for this fight, even though they may have known that before the battle even b egan they have lost. In Nigeria, religious and social lives are interwoven, if t he Church rejects you, the society invariably rejects you. A rejection by the so ciety could even limit ones educational chances in Nigeria. This was the dilemma of Nigerian Pastor Macauley Jide Rowland, the founder of the popular gay-friendl y House of Rainbow Church. He was attacked and even forced to flee to Britain wh ere he runs an online bible studies for Nigerian gays. In Nigeria the penal code, the federal law and the Sharia law have provisions tha t criminalize and/or condemn sodomy. Same-sex sexual activity in Nigeria is illeg al according to Chapter 21, Articles 214 and 217 of the Nigerian penal code and can be punished by imprisonment of up to 14 years throughout Nigeria. In the 12 northern states that have adopted Sharia law, anal intercourse (Liwat) is punishe d with 100 lashes (for unmarried Muslim men) and one years imprisonment and death by stoning for married or divorced Muslim men (cf. The Tribune Newspaper, Novemb er 9, 2011). So, homosexuality is not only frowned at or opposed by the west but

also in Africa and Nigeria. It is quarreled with by most churches and societies , yet homosexuals and pro-homosexuals insist that our claims are not solid enoug h to refute their free public expression. We shall examine therefore more solid cases against homosexuality. A CASE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY AND GAY MARRIAGE The case for Homosexuality seem so far-fetched, not so much because of its socia l vilification, or the strong religious opposition it faces but so much because even in principle, the arguments buffered for it equally lack strength of susten ance. It is in this light we shall examine arguments against it. To begin with, we must make a distinction between homosexual constitution; that is, an inherent sexual orientation, from homosexual activities. I refute pro-hom osexuals who argue that most homosexuals have an innate homosexual propensity on the basis that, it is not supported by biological evidence. Peschke (2004, p. 4 82) supports this point when he says; No physiological differences between the ho mosexual and heterosexual individual have been discovered so far. Hence, its cau ses must rather be searched in psychological factors. Homosexuality is probably the result of an interaction between a persons early life experience and the part icular constitutional make-up. All in all, the problem is quite analogous to man y other life problems: scruples, inhibitions, obsessions, shyness, etc. The claim therefore that a person who is a homosexual may not be culpable may not be so f ounded. To further show how unsubstantial, it is to say homosexuality is more of a genetic make-up, is the fact that many homosexuals have changed their lifesty les to healthy heterosexuals. The fact too that there have been cases where one identical twin is heterosexual and the other homosexual equally debunks the clai m that homosexuality is genetically determined. Again, let us suppose with a fli ck of chance that it is a genetic condition; because it is sinful, would have ma de the person change this situation since changing, is never argued by pro-homos exuals as not a possibility. Homosexuality is a moral aberration on a number of self-sufficient grounds. Homosexuality and Gay Marriage are frowned at because of their moral nature. Sin ce it is arguably true that nobody is born a homosexual but an activity and trai t that is influenced by experiences, restrictions, circumstances and environment , then the action is adjudged morally wrong by ethical standards and by religiou s examination, it is passed as a sin. Pro-homosexual theologians seem to counter a number of passages in scriptures, which are commonly cited against homosexual ity, especially Genesis 19; the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; a punishment meted by God for moral perversity and homosexual practices. Some scriptural inte rpretations have argued that homosexuality was not particularly the moral vice b lamed against the men of Sodom and Gomorrah for its destruction. Nevertheless, t his may not completely be farfetched with a close examination of Gen 19:5-10 wit h the men of Sodom and Gomorrahs demand to know the men who were visiting Lot and t heir rejection of Lots offer of his virgin daughters for sexual relations, insist ing on knowing the male visitors or angels. Today Sodom and Gomorrah is idiomatic for great moral perversity and it is from this episode the word Sodomy or Sodomi te found roots, which means, anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposit e sex or to copulate with a member of the same sex. However, other stronger pass ages condemn homosexuality more plainly in the scriptures. In the code of holiness in the book of Leviticus (18:22, 20:13), homosexuality i s condemned as a sin that deserved death penalty. In this passage, God refers to homosexuality as an abomination. He states, You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22). God tells His chosen people that His judgment would fall upon the inhabitants of Canaan for practici ng these vices. In the New Testament too, Romans 1: 26-32 is explicit in condemn ing homosexual practices. St. Paul writes, For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that whic h is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function

of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committ ing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their er ror (Romans 1:26-27). Also, I Corinthians 6:9ff and I Timothy 1:9ff are other New Testament texts that oppose homosexuality in clear terms and this is particular ly noted, as a sin that exclude one from the kingdom of God. Homosexual relations equally defy natural reasoning. It is natural for a man to be attracted to a woman and vice versa. In addition, the natural sex partner for a man is a woman and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. However, onc e, it now involves relations with someone of the same sex it becomes an issue ag ainst Natural Law or unnatural. The Catholic Church thus teaches: "Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered . They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2 357). Furthermore, homosexuality is a closed form of sexual expression, making for a s elfish expression. The essence or primary ends of sexual relations are for life and love. Homosexuality vehemently frustrates this double purpose; it is a perve rted form of sexuality that is not ruled by love but by a redefined lust seeking justification and right. It is from this vantage point we discuss the negative consequences and inviability of Gay Marriages. Genesis 1:27-28 tells us that God created mankind male and female, and He commanded them to multiply and fill the ea rth. Genesis 2:18 states that God decided to make for man a helper suitable for hi m. Genesis 2:24 declares that a man shall cleave to his wife; and they shall becom e one flesh. It is clear from these passages that the intention of Gods creative p urpose for human sexuality is a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman. Sexual intercourse within Gods will is limited within the bonds of heteros exual, monogamous marriage. This conclusion is confirmed by our Savior Jesus Chr ist when He said in Matthew 19:4-5, Have you not read, that He who created them f rom the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shal l become one flesh(P. Fernandes, 2009). Gay Marriage is therefore just as nonsensi cal as it sounds. Homosexuality and Gay Marriages lack normalcy and finality. Every sexual express ion has finality but both homosexuality and Gay Marriage are closed expressions of sexuality. If the future of the human society were to depend on it, then, man would have signed a warrant for its self-extinction. Even with the clamor and a gitation for legalization and recognition for Gay Marriage, no case of Gay Marri age has ever been cited to enjoy a stable, faithful and lasting union for a long time, yet it is erroneously projected by pro-homosexuals as remedy for the fail ure of heterosexual marriages. One danger that even awaits them and whose fright may have destroyed this infatuated lust from maturing to its full like heterose xual marriages is the fact that, at old age, many homosexuals may find that they are left without family, roots and friends and that they are no longer attracti ve as partners of sexual satisfaction. Moreover, that friendships based on the d eeper, more lasting foundation of a spiritual love have not matured. Homosexual persons themselves agree that the normal man, restricted as he may be by family routine, has little cause to envy the so-called gay life (Peschke, 2004). Gay marr iage is therefore detrimental to the institution of Marriage and family life. Go d therefore does not bless same sex marriage. Homosexual persons are morally si ck people that require help and attention not necessarily discrimination and rej ection. Homosexuality and Gay Marriage have been discussed on ethical and religious fron ts; it suffices too to be analyzed on legal grounds granted the fact that we liv e in an era of maximized freedom wherein people have a right to expressing thems

elves so long as one does not infringe on the freedom of the other. The imposing question is, should a countrys law determine the moral position of a person or i nfluence his actions and choices especially with personal moral preferences? Hom osexuality is not so much of a case of private morality because it is an action done with another person whose consequences affect social and society life. It i s therefore a case of legislation for the government of a people, who has a sole mn duty to ensure the health and wellbeing of her citizenry. Again, homosexualit y has become the breeding ground for many dangerous diseases. Some of these dise ases such as Hepatitis B, Tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS can be spread through this m eans. Therefore, for the protection of society, homosexuality should be outlawe d or legally discouraged. Homosexuality is a public health issue, not necessaril y a civil right issue. Those who canvass for its legalization should be sure of the front they are making their advocacy. One may readily ask, does heterosexual ity not allow the transference of the same kind venereal infections outlined abo ve? True, it is possible, but a government has a right to checkmate avenues, whi ch are not normative and which pose a great danger to public health. A governmen t has a right too to regulate attitudes that would determine social behaviour by which she wants her citizens to be defined, especially when it is inconsistent with the peoples tradition and customs. All these lend support to the fact that a governments decision to outlaw homosexuality is not only proper but also equally imminent and necessary. The prevalence of homosexuality is symptomatic of a radically sick society. It i s equally indicative of a society whose morality is on its knees. The acts of ho mosexuality are reflective of a disordered personality and dysfunctional sexuali ty. Homosexuals are people who need help by way of counseling and guided assista nce. They are not to be condemned. The Church in her pastoral ministry to the si ck must see this as a challenge to be undertaken. People who involve in this sho uld be helped to a fuller realization of themselves and of the appreciation of t he virtue of chastity and normative sexuality. "Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at time s by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, t hey can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection" (CCC 2357 2359). St. Paul comfortingly reminds us, "No temptation has overtaken you t hat is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted be yond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (1 Cor. 10:13). *Fr. Francis Ikhianosime, is a Catholic Priest of the Diocese of Auchi.