I recall from the 1970s when homosexual activists overwhelmingly disdained marriage with its “traditional” and “monogamous” foundations, and simply wanted the government “out of our bedrooms.” Their focus was on personal sexual liberation and fulfillment, and thus they sought the repeal of state sodomy laws (which by then were typically not enforced, yet remained on the legal books).
That struck me then—and still now—as honest, because homosexual activists recognized the institution of marriage as reserved for a man and a woman open to the conjugal fruit of children; meanwhile, romantic relationships between homosexuals were merely ordered toward temporary sexual satisfaction.
Consequently, it should not surprise us that the marital act—by definition—unites, whereas sodomy divides. As the Catholic Church teaches, the consummation of a validly ratified marriage renders it indissoluble, and regular conjugal relations between a loving husband and wife help foster and deepen their marital relationship, whereas sodomy does not for same-sex couples.
Why is this so?
Sodomy—By Nature—Cannot Unite Two People
One need not invoke a religious argument to grasp the bodily complementarity between a man and a woman: the two become truly one in conjugal intimacy. Furthermore, their union should be lifelong and exclusive, which is substantiated by the possible procreative fruit of their sexual encounter (see Gen. 2:23-24 and Matt. 19:1-12 for religious support). Thus the term the marital act, because it concretely distinguishes the type of friendship a man has with his wife—total, faithful, fruitful, and unconditional—from the friendships he has with any other woman.
In marked contrast, complementarity—and associated giving and receiving—is self-evidently non-existent in the sexual act of sodomy.
And here I submit that we can learn from the life experience of Gore Vidal, a famous homosexual novelist. Vidal understood the destructive impact of sodomy, and thus, after an initial sexual encounter with his friend, Howard Austen, the pair never again engaged in sex for their remaining fifty-three years as best friends and roommates:
“I’ve always made a point: Never have sex with a friend,” Vidal said. “You can always get somebody for sex. You’re not going to make many friends in life in any case, and having sex with them wrecks it” (emphasis mine).
Vidal added, “It’s easy to sustain a relationship when sex plays no part, and impossible, I have observed, when it does.” The author was also known to say, “that he didn’t believe in gay people, just gay sexual acts.”
Austen died in 2003 and Vidal 2012. Despite their many years together, they never sought to be joined through a legally recognized domestic partnership. Vidal and Austen knew that they were best friends living together chastely—at least regarding each other; and I daresay that they weren’t interested in legal recognition of relationships which would accord sodomy a dignity it neither had, nor to which it is entitled.
I’ve encountered other homosexual men who have also affirmed Vidal’s point: not engaging in sodomy is fundamental to their relationship with their same-sex partner or best friend (though they will engage in sex with others).
In contrast, Paul Darrow is a Catholic man who lived the homosexual lifestyle with gusto, and yet found it gravely wanting (see CCC 2357-2359). He poignantly recounts his journey home to Christ and his Church in the documentary Desire of the Everlasting Hills, and he acknowledges providential assistance from EWTN foundress Mother Angelica.
Darrow has lived chastely for many years with his former longtime partner and enduring good friend, who has attested that Paul is a much better person and housemate since his reversion to Catholicism and commitment to chastity.
This evidence from both Catholic and secular sources affirms: it is better when two men and two women have a deep friendship and live as brothers or sisters, respectively, rather than as a romantic couple. Therefore, any attempt to “sanctify sodomy” from some Church leaders does a grave disservice, whether to those romantically involved or to those who are otherwise malformed in the process.
To be clear, sound moral counsel dictates that two men or two women who have same-sex attraction (SSA) toward each other should not live together, given the near occasion of grave sin such a living arrangement poses for them, as well as because—especially if they are practicing Catholics—their doing so can serve as a source of scandal for others (see CCC 2284-2287). (In Darrow’s case, God remarkably liberated him from SSA.)
At the same time, we can encourage in charity all homosexual couples who remain committed to living together to do so as chaste brothers or sisters, and so thereby we can affirm the goodness of their fundamental friendship. If they are Catholic, we should exhort them to go to confession for their past misdeeds, and, in any event, accompany them as friends for the long term, humbly remembering our own need for God’s merciful love.