Time to open up ye olde mail pouch.

Many thanks to this reader, who writes:

"I love your blog, by the way. It's one of my daily stops.

"In your post on homosexuality, I think you're not understanding Sullivan's arguments. He claims that denying homosexual couples the right to live as a couple takes away 1. citizenship and 2. personhood.

"1. You list due process and the right to vote as two examples of what makes someone a citizen. But what would you think of this: Alabama passes a law forbidding black people from either marriage or having sex, but still preserves the right of black people to due process, voting, etc.?

"2. You state that in marriage, two people become one. So, my husband becomes part of who I am. Taking away my right to marry would, in fact, detract from my personhood.

"And just one more thing for you to chew on:
The difference between homosexual acts and regular sex is that the later produces children (or has the chance to), while the former, by its nature, cannot. A sexual act that cannot bear fruit is just going to be in search of pleasure, whereas an action that can result in 26 little children (Anselm, Bridget, Crystostom, ... Yvette, Zachariah) is great. Please discuss this statement in light of the Orthodox Churchs' chillness with contraception."

First point:

I don't think it's fair to compare a law banning black people the right to marry and have sex with one banning homosexuals the right to marry and have sex. I think a law more analogous would be the law banning minors from voting.

Marriage has always been, by definition, a union between man and woman structured around home life and the rearing of children. Similarly, voting is a prerogative of those who have the ability to step outside of the home and act in public life.

We keep minors from voting because doing so would make a mockery of voting. They are obviously too immature to cast a reasonable ballot. I can see it now: the Democratic candidate who promises a federally funded right to candy sweeps the under-18 constituency.

We keep gays from marrying because that would destroy the institution of marriage, similar to how open homosexuality is destroying the priesthood. As I argued earlier, such a "marriage" would lack the concrete symbols of union that keep it from being just a mutual use relationship with no necessary long-term commitment, etc.

Second point:

All relationships are augmentations of personhood. We as people are unknowable without the duties that come from our connection to other people.

The augmentation that comes from marriage is unique. First, there is the physical augmentation, in that one's genes are passed along and combined with those of the spouse to create new life. Second, there is the augmentation that comes from the union of the two complimentary aspects of humanity: the masculine and the feminine. This is different than a simple friendship between a man and woman because of the first, and the physical act that leads to the first.

Though I'm sure a guy will get something from a homosexual relationship, much more is being taken away, actually. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the sex act as well as a misunderstanding of the proper sort of relationship two males (or females) should share.

Third point:

I'll address that in my next post. This one is long enough enough.