Marital love: pop culture vs. God's intent.

The past half-century has been witness to an unrelenting struggle between two concepts of human sexuality.

Traditional

First, there is the traditional concept, rooted in the sexual revolution initiated 3000 years ago by Judaism, and later reinforced and carried forward by Christianity. It asserts that sex is meant to bond man and woman and to create new life, and that these two elements are inseparable.

It views sex as being truly human when it is integrated into a person-to-person relationship based on a lifelong commitment. The need for integration proceeds from the fact that, in all men and women, there is a tension between a lower, prideful self (rooted in what Christians call "original sin") and a higher, nobler, generous self, the two struggling to gain control over mind and body.

Recreational

Second, there is the recreational view of sex--perhaps best characterized as the Playboy view--emanating from the sexual revolution of the 1960s. It postulates that sex is nothing more than the tingling of the genitals, with orgasm as the goal and the partner as the means to achieve it. Sex is here understood as a force that must be "liberated," failing which it becomes "repressed" and, consequently, harmful. Chastity, i.e. not giving free rein to sexual impulses, is considered unhealthy, almost "abnormal." All sexual behaviours are permissible subject to three provisos: mutual consent, physical safety and absence of harm to children.

These two concepts agree on one thing only: human sexuality is a very powerful force. They differ on how to deal with this force. One says that it must be channeled into marriage; the other that it must be given free rein. One says that, through reason and moral education, passions can be controlled; the other that freedom is in essence giving free rein to one's passions.

A third party

Some people believe that these two concepts are based on a false dichotomy and represent extreme positions held by "right-wing extremists" or "religious bigots," on the one side, and by "left-wing extremists" or "radical secularists," on the other. The contention here is that between the two concepts of sex, there exists a more reasonable "middle ground" which admits of a certain degree of sexual permissiveness (e.g. contraception, pre-marital sex, perhaps even homosexual relationships)-subject, however, to some limitations (e.g. no group sex, no spouse-swapping, etc.).

This "halfway" approach to sexuality is intellectually unsustainable. While it is certainly true that a person's actual behaviour may partake one day of one concept and another day of the other (we all have our failings or idiosyncrasies), to suggest that, conceptually, there is a third "halfway" is nonsense. Man is either an animal endowed with reason, in which case his body cannot be reduced to a "pleasure instrument," or an animal dominated by passion, in which case his body is nothing but a "pleasure instrument.

Treating the body as a mere "pleasure instrument" is perhaps best illustrated by a comparison with eating. When we eat, we satisfy a need for physical sustenance and a need for physical pleasure (enhanced by giving the act of eating, a social dimension). Historians tell us that pleasure-seekers in decadent Rome caused themselves to vomit in order to prolong the pleasure of eating. By focusing strictly on the pleasure aspect, they separated the need for physical sustenance and the need for physical pleasure. This is, mutatis mutandis, the way modern decadents practice sex. Using contraceptive devices, they separate the unitive end (two persons giving themselves to the other without reservation) of the sexual act from its procreative end, the same way decadent Rome, through the use of vomiting agents, separated the biological and pleasurable ends of eating. Thus, there is no "halfway" house between the two concepts of sex.

\\ Recreational view now conventional

In Canada, as in most other Western countries, the recreational view has become the conventional view. Indeed, it is actively promoted by the media, the school systems, most Protestant denominations (except the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and a portion of the Anglican Communion) and the segment of Catholic clergy and laity dissenting from the official teaching of their Church.

Also, there are several "sexual interest groups" (i.e. feminists, homosexuals) who, with public financial assistance, are working actively at ensuring that the recreational concept is thoroughly embodied in our law system.

Given the foregoing, one can understand why political parties in Canada do not buy easily into policies consistent with the traditional view of sex. Using attitudes towards same-sex marriage as a proxy, one may safely conclude that virtually all of the NDP, Bloc Quebecois and Liberal MPs adhere to the recreational concept. As for the Conservative Party, it appears to be split, with approximately one third of Conservative MPs supporting the recreational view and two thirds supporting the opposite view. Moreover, the Canadian judiciary, through its "reading into" the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms rights unforeseen by its drafters, has advanced the recreational concept of sex.

The reason why same-sex "marriage" is becoming increasingly legitimized is that it is part and parcel of the new dominant view of sex. Many Canadians do not particularly like the idea of legalizing same-sex "marriage;" but, because they more or less consciously accept the recreational view of sex, they have no moral argument to oppose it. That also explains why Canadians can expect further loosening of sexual mores, with polygamy being the next "frontier."

In view of the foregoing, it is imperative to continue to press MPs to vote in favour of a reopening of the debate on same-sex "marriage." Polls indicate that, as yet, a strong majority of Canadians (68%) do not accept this concept. What is at stake is not only marriage, but the culture which our children and grandchildren will inherit.

Richard Bastien is a member of the Editorial Board of Fgargs, a French language quarterly journal published out of Montreal, and director of the Catholic Civil Rights League for the National Capital Area.