Kevin Rudd: Christian and Supporting Gay Marriage

25 Sep

I’ve always liked posts on UpWorthy. Often, I really find these things to be quite inspirational rather than what I see mostly being shared on my Facebook News Feed. But today, a particular post caught my attention which shows the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd being interviewed and answering a Pastor’s question regarding his position on gay marriage.

His logic is not that hard to follow. The premise is that homosexuality is not a disorder, therefore it is a natural state of being and any exercise of that state would be permissible. It would also be reprehensible do deny these human beings the natural tendency for them to express and want love.

The next part of the Q&A is typical of those non-Catholic Christians (and sometimes of Catholics as well), is that they immediately rely on biblical texts to support their argument. In this particular case, it was clearly unwise to use the bible because of what the Prime Minister precisely did: take a verse/quote and interpret it in his own terms. It is unfortunate that the pastor could not defend his position apart from references to the bible. And the Prime Minister used his reason to support his conclusion.

And this is where I find myself fortunate to have a long line of great Catholic thinkers that doesn’t solely rely on the Bible. Philosophy and Natural Law may help but only if we both agree to the existence of one truth — an objective morality of the thing being discussed.

I’m not a philosopher nor a well-read analyst but I try to digest logic when I can.

The problem hinges on the premise that either homosexuality is natural or unnatural. Natural being a ‘normal’ state; unnatural being an ‘abnormal’ state. Rudd then forwards his conclusion that if homosexuality is ‘natural’ i.e. normal, then it follows that they must be allowed to marry and not denied marriage equality.

If I remember right, existence in nature does not connote normalcy. (Or does it?) Homosexuality (or to use the Catholic term “same-sex attraction”) is hardly a choice. Though it is uncomfortable for me to simply accept that because it was not a choice when we were born into the world, we can’t do anything about it. If I were born with a genetic predisposition to getting fat (i.e. natural, ‘normal’), can’t I diet, exercise and expect a change? Or could I just get fat and simply blame my lack of choice in this thing I’m born with? So, if this predisposition to getting fat (not obese, which is clearly a disorder) is natural and normal, we shouldn’t stop people from getting fat? I don’t think it computes.

If we can’t do anything about it, then perhaps Rudd might be onto something there. But we can. Why? By design, and by the very nature of man as a creature, he has to reproduce to perpetuate his progeny. Would not this be the natural and normal thing for a species? And, granted, if a heterosexual union is barren, it does not take away the compatibility of the two members. The thing is man was clearly designed for woman, and woman for man.

Should these same-sex couples now wish to have children of their own, but cannot have through normal and natural channels, they hire women to use either sperm to ‘create’ a child of their own (separate) flesh. Of course, this is not solely a homosexual couple’s condition but it will be more predominantly used by them because their union cannot produce life. Though it is not the sole purpose of a marriage, does it not take away this aspect? Is it not, then, natural and normal?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: