As a Catholic, my question about gay marriage is not why I should be concerned about legalizing an immoral activity. My question — the question that is at the root of this whole controversy, for Catholics and most other citizens in Rhode Island — is whether the sexual activity that takes place within a legal marriage of two people of the same sex is really immoral.

Since the sexual activity of two legally joined and consenting adults does not violate the rights of either, the argument that homosexuality is unnatural, therefore immoral, immediately demands proof. The number of homosexuals indicates that homosexuality is more common than realized by heterosexuals. It has certainly been held as unnatural by heterosexuals, to the extent that homosexuals have been persecuted and discriminated against, even in our democracy.

Has it been proven that homosexuality is a mental or physical disorder? Has it been proven that homosexuality is a learned behavior? Does the intent to achieve reproduction have to be a part of the sexual activity? Can we absolutely judge homosexuality as unnatural because of Scripture? To my knowledge, the answer to those questions is no. If, then, the prejudicial label of “unnatural” cannot be proven, we must admit that our discrimination is founded on no more than tradition. Slavery comes immediately to mind as once accepted tradition.

If the sexual drive and the emotional need to find a life companion are as strong in the homosexual as in me, a heterosexual, then asking the homosexual to deny those emotions is to impose an unbelievable burden upon a soul. Many have tried to pacify consciences by statements like, “Homosexuals are children of God and should be treated as such.” But then comes the judgment that, if homosexuals are acting immorally and should be condemned when they take part in homosexual activity, then their sexual emotions and basic desires must be immoral. Does that make any sense?

We heterosexuals claim that our sexual desires and emotions are natural and good, or at least indifferent, since, when used properly, they are means to good ends. One of the strongest and best results of sexual activity between two married people is the strengthening of that marriage. Satisfying the need to be loved and intimate with one’s partner outweighs even the physical satisfaction as well as the possibility of conception. That is the reason the Catholic Church has accepted the practice of “natural contraception.” It is no longer considered just the necessary toleration of a “weakness” in the married couple’s self-control.

Limited celibacy imposed by all levels of society is a very necessary restraint on our weak human nature. Legalized marriage in the eyes of civil society and religious groups is the usual socially accepted context for sexual intercourse. Intimate sexual activity outside marriage has always and rightfully been viewed as placing the physical satisfaction as primary. We constantly see the individual and public problems that result. Voluntary celibacy when motivated by worthy reasons is a very beautiful thing. Involuntary celibacy imposed by physical or mental disorders is unfortunate. Involuntary absolute celibacy imposed by religious or civil groups is what I would label “unnatural.”

Examining the reasons why I should label legalized sexual activity by homosexuals as immoral, I have found none to be valid. By removing that judgment, that label, I remove the concerns I had about “gay marriage” and, in fact, I feel I have placed myself more in line with the inclusive attitude of Jesus. Indeed, I long for the day we can welcome back to our Catholic community, with no more sexual constraints than we place on all our members, the many members of the gay community who, I know, must be so confused and dismayed by our lack of understanding and acceptance of their “natural” condition.

RAY HODGES

West Greenwich