I consider it an honor to defend Todd Carter and his stance on homosexual marriage. It is not often that one comes across such a fresh and courageous defense of tradition in the mires of the secularized and isolated collegiate world. Yes, even Catholics have come to recite that boring party line of the secularist left, as Shannon Hagar has exhibited.
Carter's argument, apart from inciting livid opposition, was based on a sound philosophical-theological position. Whether one agrees with the position is another issue. To find out the truth of this statement, one need only consult the rich sources of Catholic tradition. The likes of rigorous thinkers such as Cyril, Chrysostom, Chrysogonus, Athanasius, Theodoret, Justinian, Augustine, Aquinas, Suarez, Cajetan and Lagrangre to name only a few fall clearly into line with Carter's thought pattern. From Moses to Cicero, Fulton Sheen to J.R.R. Tolkien, all of Western society has known well of the libidinous nature of homosexual acts. But suddenly in the 1960's certain liberal Americans abruptly redefined themselves and took on an air of superiority over the past. Carter's detractors are heirs to a forty year tradition. Carter, however, is heir to an immemorial tradition.
Before I briefly review the philosophical-theological underpinning of Carter's position, I'd like to consult my good old American Heritage. Marriage 1a. The state of being husband and wife: wedlock. b. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
Moving on; scholastic thought is clearly in accord with classical thought on the issue. Both refer to the natural law engrained in nature. With regard to homosexual relations, the natural law is simple, they are contrary to it. The natural law stipulates that the sexual organs, male with its female counterpart, serve the purpose of propagating the species. Since marriage is procreative and sexual in nature, homosexual marriages are de facto useless. Now human laws, in order to be just must be in accord with the natural law. As such it is logically clear that homosexual marriage is intolerable.
In closing this necessarily short Apologia, I ask readers to cease repeating ad hoc fallacies and discuss the matter in a dignified manner. Mr. Todd Carter has put forward a perfectly tenable position and has presented it in a charitable fashion. Readers should respond in kind. I'd also like to point readers to a medical study by licensed practitioners supporting Carter's "unsubstantiated" medical claims; http://www.lifesite.net/features/marriage_defence/SSM_MD_evidence.htm
Gregory Vincent Bartholomew
Alumni, Seton Hall University
