Christians have their differences, but they also have their commonalities. There are many issues that Christians of all stripes can face with locked arms. One example is the culture’s acceptance of immoral lifestyle choices—in this case, so-called “sex reassignment” surgeries and sodomy (that is, sexual activity between members of the same sex).
But what some Christians fail to realize is the principles that undergird “sex reassignment” surgeries and sodomy are the same principles that undergird an issue that causes lots of controversy in the Christian community: contraception. Christians should lock arms on this one, too!
Contraception involves the voluntary use of our sexual faculties while actively frustrating (directing away from) the achievement of the end to which nature orders those faculties: reproduction (“procreation,” if we assume that God is in the picture). In other words, a contracepted reproductive act ceases, on purpose, to be reproductive. And so it bespeaks the message that our reproductive powers, and thereby our reproductive organs, are not about reproduction. As philosopher Abigail Favale puts it in her book The Genesis of Gender: A Christian Theory, in a contraceptive society, “reproduction has receded into the background. . . . The visible sexual markers of our bodies [our reproductive organs] no longer gesture toward new life” (143).
Favale rightly points out that the contraceptive mentality of our culture guts the reproductive meaning of our sexed bodies. But I would take it one step further. As mentioned above, the reproductive meaning of our sexed bodies is gutted within each contraceptive act, since, again, the act itself militates against the reproductive end of our sexed bodies.
Some people who contracept periodically may counter and say, “Hey, we haven’t gutted the reproductive meaning of our sexed bodies. Look, we have three kids.” True, here there may not be a total repudiation of the reproductive meaning of our sexed bodies. But if it’s okay to gut our sexed bodies of their reproductive meaning in some cases, then there’s nothing in principle to prohibit the repudiation of the reproductive meaning of our sexed bodies in all cases. Here the contracepting couple put themselves more and more on the road to the rejection of our sexed bodies that’s so prevalent in “sex reassignment” surgeries and sodomy.
Now, how do we make the connection between this controversial issue among Christians and the two other uncontroversial issues we mentioned at the beginning?
Let’s take sodomy first. Such activity, of itself, cannot be reproductive in any capacity. No one wonders why sodomy doesn’t produce a child. It’s not sexual intercourse (coitus), with the sending of the sperm to meet the egg.
Here is an important note about language: the use of our sexual organs outside sexual intercourse (like in sodomy and masturbation) can’t even be called a sexual act, because the reproductive meaning of our sexed bodies (as male or female) is entirely cast aside. Gut our sexed bodies of their reproductive meaning, and the genitals are treated as no more sexual than the eyes or ears.
On the objective level—irrespective of the view of the person acting—our sexed bodies retain their reproductive meaning. But at least from the perspective of the person using his sexual faculty in a way contrary to its natural end of reproduction, that faculty is treated as if it were not sexual.
From here, it’s doesn’t take much to begin seeing the parallel between sodomy and contracepted sexual acts. The difference is that contracepting at least retains the order of male-female complementarity, and coitus, when it is not thwarted through contraception, can conceive a child. Sodomy can’t achieve reproduction in principle. But both acts are similar in that each treats our sexual organs as non-sexual.
What about so-called “sex reassignment” surgery? How does the logic of contraception relate?
Here’s the principle: The reproductive meaning of our sexed bodies doesn’t matter and is cast aside at will.
If the end for which our sexed bodies exist—namely, reproduction—doesn’t matter, which it doesn’t when contraception comes into play, then our sexed bodies themselves don’t matter. If you take away the end, then that which exists for the sake of the end no longer matters—it has no purpose. On such a view, our sexual markers as male and female no longer matter, because they are no longer treated as ordered to reproduction.
We might summarize the thinking this way:
Premise One: If we affirm that our sexed bodies matter, then we must affirm that the order our sexed bodies have to reproduction matters.
Premise Two: But within the logic of contraception, we can’t affirm that the order our sexed bodies have to reproduction matters, since the reproductive powers, and the organs behind them, are being used for an end contra reproduction.
Conclusion: Therefore, at least within the logic of contraception, we can’t affirm that our sexed bodies matter.
The above conclusion goes to the heart of the creed of modern gender theory: it is irrelevant that our bodies are sexed, male and female, both for reproduction and for determining a person’s individual identity as male or female. The “sexual markers” that we traditionally viewed as expressive of our male and female reproductive powers are considered merely cosmetic. This is why “sex reassignment” surgery is fair game.
What’s the root of this? The gutting of our sexed bodies of their reproductive meaning. That’s where contraception, sodomy, and “sex reassignment” intersect, and why Christians should be united in opposing all three.
Nothing we’ve said so far shows that the above activities are immoral. That’s not what we’re after here. But we have shown that if someone has a problem with sodomy and “sex reassignment” surgeries, then he ought to have a problem with contraception, too. By the same token, if someone is okay with the latter, then, to be logically consistent, he ought to be okay with the former. Like the State Farm commercial, contraception, sodomy, and “sex reassignment” surgeries come in a “bundle.” To accept one, you got to accept them all.
***This article was originally published by Catholic Answers Magazine Online, November 11, 2023.