Our immune system, certainly one of the great marvels of nature, equips us with 100 billion (100,000,000,000) immunological receptors. Each of these tiny receptors has the uncanny natural capacity to distinguish the self from the nonself. Consequently, they are able to immunize or protect our bodies against the invasion of foreign substances that could be harmful to us.

Marvelous as nature is, it is never extremist. From a purely immunological point of view (from the standpoint of an all out defensive strategy), a woman’s body would reject the oncoming sperm, recognizing it as a foreign substance. But this is precisely the point at which nature, we might say, becomes wise. If our immune system regards sperm as a potential enemy, then fertilization would never take place, and the human race would have come to an early demise with the passing of Adam and Eve.

But something extraordinary occurs which makes fertilization and the continuation of the human race possible. Traveling alongside the sperm in the male’s seminal fluid is a mild immunosuppressant. Immunologists refer to it as consisting of “immunoregulatory macromolecules.” This immunosuppressant is a chemical signal to the woman’s body that allows it to recognize the sperm not as a nonself, but as part of its self. It makes possible, despite the immune system’s usual preoccupation with building an airtight defense system, a “two-in-one-flesh” intimacy.

We have noted two important features about the content of male semen: (1) the capacity of the sperm to fuse with the nucleus of the woman’s egg (fertilization); (2) the mild immunosupressant that allows the woman’s immune system to welcome the male sperm as part of her own flesh.

Now that sodomy is talked about as a human right to be exercised by male same-sex couples without discrimination, we may ask the pertinent question, “What happens when sperm is deposited in the rectal area rather than the vaginal area?”

Male sperm, being blissfully unresponsive to political ideologies or cultural trends, go right ahead and behave strictly according to their nature. They penetrate the nucleus of whatever body call (somatic cell) they might encounter. This fusing, however, does not result in fertilization, the first stage in the life of a new human being, but, as scientists have shown, can and do result in the development of cancerous malignancies. In an article entitled, “Sexual Behaviour and Increased Anal Cancer,” published in Immunology and Cell Biology, authors Richard J. Ablin and Rachel Stein-Werblowsky, report that “anal intercourse is one of the primary factors in the development of cancer.”1 According to the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, “Our study lends strong support to the hypothesis that homosexual behaviour in men increases the risk of anal cancer.”2 In addition, the International Journal of Cancer finds that “Being single and having practiced anal intercourse appears to be associated with anal cancer and case reports have suggested a recent increase in the number of cases of anal cancer.”3 The medical references are legion.

Also, we may ask, “What happens when the male immunosuppressant is deposited in the rectal area?” Scientists tell us that when this occurs, an “immunopermissive environment” is created. This environment, in which the immune system is not working as it should, is favorable for the perpetration of spermatozoa-induced tumors and other pathologies. It is as if, in this instance, the immune system becomes confused and welcomes its enemies. C. Rabkin et al., in the American Journal of Epidemiology, found a decreasing immunocompetence in a substantial proportion of HIV-positive homosexual men, particularly those with a history of intraepithelial abnormalities.

Depositing sperm in the “wrong place” (like pouring motor oil into the gas line), by nature’s standards, is courting disaster. Nature, we might add, demands respect. It does not make accommodations to politically based ideologies or individual preferences. From nature’s standpoint, there is no equality between heterosexual and male homosexual intercourse.

Furthermore, the vagina is totally impermeable to viruses. By contrast, the rectum is designed to absorb up to the last possible useful nutrient that we have eaten. There is an enormous lymphatic network (involving blood vessels) in the lining or mucosa of the rectum. Therefore, the rectal area is designed to absorb, and will absorb the ingredients of male semen if they are in the vicinity.

The same-sex issue is hotly contested. This is par for the course when it comes to moral issues. All too often, as it is commonly said, there is far more heat than light. In order to bring some measure of objectivity to the discussion, a close observation of nature, such as science can provide, is extremely helpful. Science in itself, like nature, is immune to political or fashionable trends. But in looking closely and carefully at what the science of immunology can tell us, we have even more reason for upholding and honoring the wisdom of marriage as a union of a man and a woman. And what is more, we have added reason to feel awe when we re-read the first chapter of Genesis that refers to marriage as a union of “two-in-one flesh.”

The harmonious relationship between immunology and Genesis on the subject of marriage offers us an approach that is essentially realistic. It is, in fact, fully consistent with Pope John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” and well exemplifies a philosophy of “anthropological realism.” On the other hand, the politicization of marriage tears it away from its mooring in nature. Thus unanchored from anything existential, it soars like a kite no longer tethered by a string to the hand, flies away and soon disappears from sight.

Al and Tipper Gore’s book, Joined at the Heart, that affirms and celebrates same-sex unions, is a clear example of how an unrealistic and metaphorical approach to marriage is without any ground in reality. “Joined at the Heart” is an appropriate metaphor for a Hallmark Greeting Card, but it does not describe the existential reality of conjugal intimacy. We should not want to use a metaphor to replace a reality (the proper use of a metaphor is to extend a visible reality but without negating it). If a man is literally “stabbed in the back,” his acute and excruciating condition should not be vaporized into a metaphor. He needs urgent medical treatment. But this metamorphosis of a substantial reality into a vapor is precisely what the tandem of politics and sentimentality can do. In exchanging the reality for the dream, it destroys the reality. Peggy Drexler, a research psychologist, makes the following comment in “Women’s Enews:” “Gay and lesbian couples...are challenging us all to reevaluate the terms of marriage...they are also transforming the nature of parenting—and showing how Americans have transcended the gender-based definitions of parenting. We aren’t mother or father anymore; we’re just parents.” Heterosexual married couples, presumably, have gotten it all wrong for so many millennia! Now the proper role models for marriage have finally arrived in the form of same-sex couples that have transcended and transformed gender and parenting.

The term “parent,” of course, is the generic term that includes “mother” and “father.” Mother and father are more specific manifestations of parent. In addition, the particular parent whom the child calls “mommy” or “daddy” is even more specific inasmuch as it is fully personalized. This is the centripetal movement from the generic to the gender specific to the personal. It is a movement from the relatively abstract to the existentially concrete. Children have no trouble in distinguishing mommy from daddy.

The new and politicized notion of parenting is centrifugal and flies away from the existential and personalized center. And so, Ms. Drexler can speak of “mother” and “father” as “archaic concepts.” Indeed, as she goes on to say, “for gays and lesbians, the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ are barely even linguistic conveniences.” She wants today’s new parents to “work without ties to traditional sex roles.” But in dissolving such “ties,” are we not releasing parents from their ties to reality?

In general, as a direct result of clearing the ground for same-sex marriage, the notion of marriage has become so tenuous that it is rapidly vaporizing into a misty abstraction. The situation is not more encouraging in Canada than it is in the United States.

In 1997 the Canadian Parliament established the Law Commission of Canada to serve both Parliament and the Justice Ministry as an advisory board on legal reform. In December of 2001, the commission submitted a report to Parliament concerning marriage that it entitled, “Beyond Conjugality.”

The Report, which is not so much concerned about “marriage” as it is about what it calls “close adult relationships,” makes three recommendations. The first directs judges to consider whether the individuals are “functionally interdependent,” regardless of their marital status. Needless to say, this view, that excludes any gender requirement, would include a mother who is functionally interdependent with her son or daughter. The second recommendation, which excludes monogamy, directs individuals to register their personal relationships with the government. The authors of “Beyond Conjugality” indicate that they see no reason to limit registered partnerships to two people. The final recommendation, which excludes permanence, is the legalization of same-sex marriage. This recommendation drew the most attention when it was released. Yet, the extension of marriage to same-sex individuals is really aimed at abolishing marriage altogether. The authors note that they do not believe that the public is quite ready to accept such a step.

In contrast with the traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage, which is highly specific and well defined, “Beyond Conjugality” suggests alliances that are so vague and amorphous that virtually any combination of “close,” “supportive,” and “functionally interdependent” people can qualify to be “married” (or whatever the new term might be) in this novel and broad sense.

Nathalie Des Rosiers, President of the Law Commission of Canada, reminds us that, “The diversity of relationships in Canadian society is a reality...The Law Commission suggests that it is time to go beyond conjugality and to look at the reality of interdependencies that exist in other relationships as well.” This new acceptance of “diversity” reduces the Judeo-Christian concept of marriage to a private option—that the government may or may not recognize alongside of same-sex, sibling, roommate, lonely widow, and parent-child alliances.

One of the brains beyond “Beyond Conjugality” is Harvard’s Martha Minow (“Redefining Families: Who’s In and Who’s Out,” Univ. of Colorado Law Review, Vol. 62, No. 2, 1991). Minow also worked with her political allies, Al and Tipper Gore. The Gores’ book, Joined At the Heart, comes directly from Minow’s work.

It is a small wonder, given these overbroad notions of marriage in which any number of any types can play, that many influential people—from radical reformist Martha Fineman (The Neutered Mother, the Sexual Family, and Other Twentieth Century Tragedies) to mainstream journalist Michael Kinsley—are calling for the abolition of marriage as a legal category. The balloon expands until it bursts. Marriage without limit is marriage without meaning. Marriage for everyone is marriage for no one.

The recent ultra-liberal attempts to extend marriage to virtually everyone who wants it (and in the manner they want it) logically leads to the end of marriage as a culturally recognized relationship. Stanley Kurtz makes the point in the Weekly Standard (Aug. 2003) that “Beyond Gay Marriage” is polygamy, “polyamory” groupings and finally, “no marriage at all.” In the meantime, the lunatic attempts on the part of lawyers and politicians to redefine marriage at least make it clear what marriage is not. Marriage is not a menu for sexual life-styles, a vehicle for the delivery of government benefits, a way of gaining selfesteem, a political advantage for oppressed special interest groups, an artifact of law, a sociological experiment, or a mechanism for securing social respectability.

Real marriage is and always will be a two-in-one-flesh union between a man and a woman who are committed to each other in love and for life, and who are open to the blessing of children whom they are prepared to love and educate to the best of their abilities. Least of all is marriage a self-absorbed life-style that neglects the needs of children.

If there has been a failure, it is that we have failed marriage and not that marriage has failed us. Thus, there is no compelling reason to redefine marriage or jettison it altogether in favor of hastily conceived experimental replacements. If reform is needed, it is not a reform in law, but a moral reform in the hearts and minds of people so that they are better prepared to execute the rights and responsibilities that married life entails. We need a “people reform” more than we need either a law or political reform of marriage.

ENDNOTES:

1. Immunology and Cell Biology, 75 (1997) 181-183.

2. J.R. Daling, N.S. Weiss, J.A. Ryan, L. Corey, R.J. Coates, K.J. Sherman, R.L. Ashley and M. Beagrie, “Sexual Practices, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and the Incidence of Anal Cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine, 16 (1987) 937-973.

3. M. Melbye, J. Palefsky, J. Gonzales, L. Ryder, N. Henrik, 0. Bergmann, J. Pindborg and R. Biggar, “Immune Status as a Determinant of Human Paillomavirus Detection and its Association with Anal Epithelial Abnormalities, International Journal of Cancer, 46 (1990) 203-206.