Have you ever wondered when and how the same-sex-marriage proposition got started? It was 100 years ago that Margaret Sanger began her literary efforts to promote contraception. It is clear now that these efforts prepared the way for the contemporary societal acceptance of sodomy under its current euphemism of same-sex marriage.
It was in 1914 the Sanger started her own paper, The Rebel Woman, and began to circulate it via the U. S. Postal system. This brought her into conflict with the existing obscenity laws, and in August she was arrested and given six weeks to prepare her defense. Instead, she wrote a book on contraception and fled to England where she imbibed more of the evil philosophy of Havelock Ellis who publicly advocated for the societal acceptance of contraception, masturbation, and sodomy. That’s When and How the idea of same-sex “marriage” was conceived although not yet explicitly proposed. Sanger returned to the States in 1916, eventually went to trial, received a very short sentence, and successfully used the legal proceedings as free publicity for her cause.
The promotional work of Ellis in England and Sanger in the United States led to much discussion in the 1920s about the social effects of accepting contraception. One such idea was “companionate marriage” — legal marriage, deliberate childlessness via contraception, divorce for any reason, and remarriage. The reformers considered the cycle of divorce and remarriage to be social progress, but they did have a proviso. If the partners have a contraceptive failure, they must remain together for the sake of the child.
Secular humanist Walter Lippmann brought a critical eye to these developments in his 1929 book, A Preface to Morals. He did not disagree with the basic argument against unlimited family size, but he found fault with the way the argument was advanced. He saw that it was folly to argue that this information could be kept to married couples because human curiosity would make certain that everybody would soon know it. “Now this is what the Christian churches, especially the Roman Catholic, which oppose contraception on principle instantly recognized. They were quite right. They were quite right, too, in recognizing that whether or not birth control is eugenic, hygienic, and economic, it is the most revolutionary practice in the history of human morals” (1999 printing, 291, emphasis added).
He then summarized his review of the sex talk of the Twenties in this way. “What has happened, I believe, is what so often happens in the first enthusiasm for a revolutionary invention. Its possibilities are so dazzling that men forget that inventions belong to man and not man to his inventions. In the discussion which has ensued since birth control became generally feasible, the central confusion has been that the reformers have tried to fix their sexual ideals in accordance with the logic of birth control instead of the logic of human nature” (306, emphasis added). How sadly true.
That was 1929. The very next year, the bishops of the Church of England debated the marital contraception issue. One of their retired members, Bishop Charles Gore, a leader of the “conservative” group, argued that the acceptance of marital contraception would lead logically to the acceptance of sodomy. Despite this clear warning, the Church of England formally accepted marital contraception in August 1930 although with some reservation. The Church of England thus became the first organized religious body calling itself Christian to accept the practice of marital contraception. In my opinion, this was even more important than the efforts of Margaret Sanger in explaining the acceptance of unnatural forms of birth control by Christians whose churches had previously condemned it. By 1958 the Anglican bishops were openly advocating marital contraception, and early in the 21st century they were accepting sodomy even by their own married bishops. Ellis and Sanger had replaced Genesis and Romans.
The bottom line is this: Once you accept marital contraception as a matter of principle, there is no logical way to say NO to heterosexual sodomy within marriage, and there is also no logical way to say NO to same-sex sodomy and even its masquerade as same-sex “marriage.” As Professor Raymond Dennehy of the University of San Francisco wrote some years ago, once you accept contraception, “any orifice will do.”
Martin Luther was correct when, in his commentary on the Sin of Onan, he called the contraceptive sin of withdrawal a form of sodomy. That applies to all unnatural forms of birth control. Thus it is not surprising that huge numbers of contracepting couples who call themselves Christian see nothing wrong with same-sex “marriage.” It’s hard to call wrong what you yourself are doing in your own marriage.
When married couples engage in mutual masturbation, that’s a form of marital sodomy. That also applies to oral and anal sexual copulation. I can imagine that practitioners of same-sex sodomy might say something to this effect—“Some of you married heterosexuals are doing our kind of sex and calling it okay for yourselves. Why shouldn’t we do sodomy and call it marriage?”
I think everybody dealing with human sexuality or who even reads the papers has to know that oral sodomy is practiced — sometimes widely — by heterosexuals, married and unmarried and even teenagers, as well as homosexuals. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, the only natural family planning books that teach explicitly against these immoral behaviors are those written by my wife and me. It only takes a few lines to say these things, so space cannot be a consideration. A related question—Is this basic moral teaching contained in any of the marriage preparation texts and courses used in Catholic parishes? I don’t know, but if any reader can cite any such books or programs, please let me know.
If the purpose of preparation for Christian marriage is to help couples live a morally good life and to build up the Church, why aren’t these things being taught in every marriage prep and NFP course and text? Is the mission of the Church advanced by omitting these basic moral teachings?
John F. Kippley, also at www.nfpandmore.org