I do not believe that I have ever once commented on homosexuals or issues of homosexuality on this site.
I have avoided these threads for a long time.
No, I'm not gay. I have a wife and family, and I'm about the most determinedly heterosexual guy you'll ever meet. Men are friends. Women are something more, even if I never act upon the impulse born within me. And since I met my wife 25 years ago, I have not acted upon that impulse, however tempted I have been. And that's the truth.
It is clear to me that people of more or less Conservative persuasion - like all of us here - are clearly very conflicted and divided over this issue, a matter that strikes at the heart of what is acceptable human behavior, what it means to be an acceptable member of society, and more profoundly, what our religious faiths in faithfulness to their tenets must in fact judge, while still discerning and respecting the essential humanity that binds us all.
And it is a recognition of our essential humanity that makes it impossible for me to despise people who behave in obeisance to the homosexual impulse, provided that they do so voluntarily and willingly.
The social problem we now face is whether the legal recognition of a relationship wherein two same-sex partners propose to enter into a legal commitment of mutual responsibility with each other, is worthy of legal protection commonly accorded to normal - yes, normal - heterosexual couples. For it is the biology of animals, and not the law, which defines what is "normal", but not necessarily what is desirable or worthy of emulation.
For human beings, because of our unique nature, homosexuality is both a matter of biology and of choice. And because of our unique capacity for reason, comprehension, idealization and philosophic development, it becomes a matter about which we must in the course of our lives develop a normative judgment: right, wrong, or neither.
Is it abnormal? Yes. Is it wrong? That is a matter for each of us to judge, according to our values and our moral compasses, as informed by the evidence of our senses.
But in a purely social context, the question is not one of morality, but of utility. What good (or evil) would arise from the legal recognition of homosexual unions?
And here is where dust turns to mud.
Because if one is to judge from the evidence of human history, many "gay" people seem to crave not liberty but license, not responsibility, but rather an escape from the demands of reality.
The argument most commonly adduced in favor of gay marriage is that such an arrangement would lead to "equality" - not that it would result in enhanced personal responsibility and commitment. I think that speaks volumes.
Nor do gay political organizations militate for marriage rights so that social harmony, security and familial organization might be enhanced - these being primary historical justifications for the legal recognition of traditional marriage. Instead, they seem to agitate for legal recognition for the purposes of claiming accredited victim status and political power, which would in turn lead to social discord, insecurity and familial dissolution.
There is then the matter of what constitutes a "marriage" - which is not primarily a legal matter but a religious one: two people may be joined in mutual responsibility by the state, but not necessarily in the eyes of one's God.
And so, I believe that same sex individuals, should they desire to commit to one another, ought to be recognized in civil unions - not in marriage, which is the proper province of each of our respective faiths. But such relationships must be held to the same exact standard as unions between partners of differing sexes, lest personal commitment be a mere facade for the sanction of licentious and dishonorable personal behavior.
Let's see how that works, over time.
Look: they are our family members and friends. As such, they deserve both our love... and our judgment.
