SHOULD WE SUPPORT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BECAUSE OF STERILE AND INFERTILE COUPLES?

There are many liberals who advocate for same-sex marriage. For Catholics and other Conservatives, this is not consistent with our beliefs and teachings on the nature of marriage. As what Lito Atienza, a Catholic politician and the House deputy speaker said,

"We don't believe in same-sex marriage because marriage is meant for a male and a female, and the purpose is reproduction [1]."

He said that the primary purpose or end of marriage is reproduction or what we also call as "procreation." This is consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church that speaks of two ends of marriage. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

2363 The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family [2].

There is the unitive aspect of marriage and the procreative aspect of marriage. However, liberals will argue that procreation should not be treated as one of its purposes. According to one judge in the Supreme Court in the Philippines, Honorary Marvic Leonen,

"So, it will not make sense for senior citizens to marry? Or those who are not fertile? Asking for a friend [3]."

What they usually mean is that we are inconsistent because if we allow marriages for sterile and infertile couples even if they do not have the ability to conceive a child, we should allow them as well. For us to see the problems of their accusations, let's consider a basic natural law argument against homosexual acts. 

Premise 1: A sexual act that is not ordered towards their ends is unnatural. 

Premise 2: Sexual acts have two ends, the procreative ends and the unitive ends.

Premise 3: Homosexual acts are not ordered towards procreation. 

Conclusion: Therefore, homosexual acts are unnatural. 

Although liberals acknowledge that naturally, same sex couple do not have the ability to procreate, they usually disagree with the first premise by citing the examples of sterile and infertile couples. However, what they do not see is that the "inability" of a same sex couple to conceive a child is different in kind from the "inability" of a sterile or infertile heterosexual couple. To understand this, let's consider our eyes as analogy. 

We know that our eyes are for seeing. However, we also know that there are people who have blind eyes, either due to accident or due to natural factors like age. Does that mean then that eye is not ordered towards seeing just because of the examples of blind people? Of course, not. Now, let's consider another body part such as our hands. Our hands do not have the ability to see. Does that mean that our hands should now be called as "eyes" because both the hands and the blind eyes cannot see? Of course, not. Even ideally, our hands cannot see because it's not the purpose of our hands. On the other hand, the purpose of the eye still remains for seeing, and it's just that there are biological factors that prevent the eye from doing it's natural end. Karlo Brousard, a Catholic apologist and philosopher, pointed this out in his article when he made a comparison between same-sex couples and sterile and infertile couples. He said,

"When a homosexual couple are unable to generate children after four years, no one wonders why. That’s because the nature of their sexual activity is not baby-making—that is to say, it’s not the type of activity that is naturally ordered toward producing children. 

On the other hand, a heterosexual couple who, due to age or medical condition or some other factor, cannot conceive a child, do engage in baby-making activity. The genital union that they achieve is the kind of activity that nature ordains to produce children. And if it were not for the unintended (accidental) physical defect, the natural end of procreation would be achieved.

So a heterosexual couple’s inability to generate children involves an impeded natural ability, whereas a homosexual couple’s inability to generate children involves no natural ability [4]."

A sexual act that is ordered towards procreation does not mean that every sexual act will lead to a child. It just means that ideally, it will lead to procreation unless some biological factors prevent it from doing so. As such, the sterile and infertile acts remain natural, and it is proper for infertile couples and senior citizens to be married. However, this cannot be said to homosexual couples who do not have the natural ability to procreate, even in the ideal scenario. This means that under no circumstances can we support and approve of same-sex marriage. 

Still, we should respect them and may we always pray for them, so that they may be able to practice chastity and find their true happiness in serving the Lord. As what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says,

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition [5].

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection [6]

References:

[1]https://mobile.twitter.com/ANCALERTS/status/1480769847084478466

[2]http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2363.htm

[3]https://mobile.twitter.com/marvicleonen/status/1480822018941792257?cxt=HHwWgsDR6fnx94wpAAAA

[4]https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-sterile-heterosexual-acts-and-homosexual-acts-are-not-the-same

[5]http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2358.htm

[6]http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2359.htm