Eighteenth century English author Henry Fielding wrote about a woodcutter forced to act as a doctor, owing to a prank played on him by his wife.
The lumberman does his best to assume the role, pretending to explain the patient’s symptoms in a barrage of nonsensical Latin. He also talks confidently about the liver and the heart, but unfortunately misplaces these organs. When it is pointed out that the liver is in fact on the right and the heart on the left, the woodsman briskly replies that all that has been changed by the Royal College of Physicians. “We have changed all that!” as Longman’s Book of Quotes records his words. Such is his assurance that he is believed by all the townsfolk standing about.
Fielding’s tale is humorous but also ludicrous. The most revered physician could not alter the composition of the human body with a few clever words. But before the 21st century laughs at the 18th century, today’s readers should recall that some of the homosexual element in our nation are attempting to redefine the nature of marriage just as airily and dismissively as the woodcutter reorganized the human torso. The human body is a given.
The Royal College of Physicians cannot alter the proper location of the heart, lungs, liver or intestines no matter how smart their Latin phrases. Nor can the homosexual lobby modify the nature of marriage. That would be an equal joke. Marriage, too, is a given.
Concubinage in the Old Testament and sporadic attempts at polygamy throughout history notwithstanding, the universal definition of marriage has been the exclusive and permanent union of one man and one woman open to new life. It is true that marriage as an established human institution has sadly fallen short of its traditional definition over the centuries. Divorce, childlessness, and remarriage have shaken society’s appreciation of marriage’s true nature. Cohabitation, single parenthood and surrogacy threaten an authentic understanding of marriage in the present day. Yet abuse does not negate use and, clearly, marriage has a nearly universal cultural acceptance as mom, dad and the kids.
Some argue that marriage is a human right vested in the individual regardless of sexual orientation or reproductive capability. Homosexuals cite the impotent man or the infertile woman as persons who are allowed to marry but cannot bear children. But impotency and infertility are accidental liabilities. They are not inherent in manhood or womanhood. Conversely the union of two men or two women is intrinsically incapable of producing offspring. Adoption and sperm donations just underline the aberration that so-called homosexual marriage would be.
The most absurd argument that some in the contemporary world propose for so-called homosexual marriage is a comparison with interracial marriage in the last century. Several states came to recognize that refusing marriage to an interracial couple was a denial of a civil right. And indeed it was. Such individuals are perfectly capable of fulfilling the nature of marriage. Couples of all races are clearly able to enter into an exclusive and permanent union of one man and one woman open to new life. Unlike homosexuality, race is a universal natural attribute; it is not a disorder. Race in no way diminishes the maleness or the femaleness of either partner. Race is totally irrelevant to the essence of marriage. Sexuality on the other hand is at the heart of marriage.
Christians who might not be convinced of the unreasonable nature of homosexual marriage proposals should recall that traditional marriage is a divinely founded natural institution.
They should also remember that the marriage of one man and one woman open to new life has been raised by Christ to the level of a sacrament. In the union of man and woman, Christ reveals a vision of his own union with his church.
The elements of permanence, exclusivity and fruitfulness that figure so basically into human marriage are found also in the union of Christ with believers. The unique male and female roles in the marriage bond sacramentally reveal the interaction of Christ with his beloved people. For Christians idly to tolerate the redefinition of marriage is to mock the profound sacramental significance of marriage. What God has joined, man must not redefine.
