The phrase "same sex marriage" and the debate surrounding it would have been unimaginable in earlier and more simple times. In much of the "backward" third world it remains unimaginable. I believe that the discussion of same sex marriage is best carried out in the broader context of homosexuality itself.
Do you believe that homosexuality is a choice? Did you choose your heterosexuality? Those questions are often poised as the starting point of the discussion. The gay activist likes to frame the discussion in precisely this way with the clear implication that homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality is. This may be correct to the extent that homosexuality may be genetically determined. It may also be determined by environmental factors, or it may be the product of genetic predisposition combined with environmental factors. The jury is still out on this question. This essential point, however, remains the same: homosexuality is not normal regardless of its cause.
An enormous variety of abnormalities and indeed pathologies within the human species are not the product of choice. Many such are the result of congenital or genetic skews i.e. Down's Syndrome, etc etc. The gay activist, however, often thinks he has scored a great victory in forcing a concession that sexual orientation and, in particular, homosexuality may not be the product of choice. The real premise that lies at the heart of the gay activist position is rarely put forward because, when plainly stated, it does not get as much social traction as its swallower version. What real premise? It is simply this:
"Homosexuality is a "normal variant" within the human species. It is no more abnormal than being born left-hand dominant than being born right-hand dominant."
Overwhelmingly, most people would not agree with the proposition just stated but, if it were true, then logically no form of discrimination against either the status or the "acting out" of homosexuality should ever be tolerated - legally, socially, culturally, ecclesiastically or otherwise. Difference in treatment would be the product of ignorance, bigotry or other misguided motive. Many people, however, might be tempted to buy into the idea that sexual orientation, including homosexuality, is not the product of choice. The gay agenda in securing that possible concession is hiding the real issue. The real issue is whether homosexuality is a normal variant within the human species - whether chosen or not!
I believe that homosexuality, to borrow a phrase from the Vatican, is "intrinsically disordered". The real truth is that homosexuality is not and never will be normal in any sense of the word. That fundamental position is precisely where the discussion should begin. As I have already stated earlier, many abnormal conditions within the human species are not chosen and that fact clearly does not make them normal - homosexuality being one such example.
The American Psychiatric Association did a great disservice to the homosexual community by yielding to their pressure in the 1970's in "depathologizing" homosexuality (without normalizing it) by removing it from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual - their bible for the diagnosis and treatment of mental and emotional disorders. Typical of the equivocal nature of the professional psychiatric response was that of Dr. Robert L. Spitzer then a psychiatrist at Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons:
"We're not saying that homosexuality is either 'normal' or 'abnormal.' We're saying that homosexuality per se is not a psychiatric disorder...."
There is little question that homosexuality is both abnormal and pathological. Would oncologists be serving their patients by "depathologizing" cancer? I don't think so! Changing labels and attempting to eliminate dysfunction by altering definition serves no one. It merely obscures the truth and prolongs the pain of those affected.
The "advances" in the social and legal acceptance of homosexuality does a disservice to two groups:
1. Society, and in particular, its bedrock - the family!
2. The homosexuals themselves
Why would the society and the family be harmed? To those who believe there is no harm - no amount of discussion would persuade them. To the rest, no discussion is necessary. Why, however, would the homosexuals be harmed? It is impossible, in fact, for a heterosexual person to imagine the enormous relief that must be felt by a homosexual, who has been subjected to all kinds of mistreatment, when "advances" in legal or social acceptance come about. The ultimate "advance" is, of course, same sex marriage. I personally do not deny the reality of that sentiment nor the exhilaration that two people of the same sex (who are homosexual) must feel when they can unite themselves together in marriage and openly proclaim their love just as heterosexuals do. To stand in their way or to denigrate their love or to question the social and legal "advances" that have made their joy possible will immediately and inevitably lead to an accusation of bigotry. The question, therefore, of how the homosexual is hurt by legal and social acceptance must be asked again!
The trend of acceptance and particularly "normalization" in whatever form strikes a dagger into their very heart. Such a trend obscures the truth and greatly decreases the possibility of help for the homosexual now or in the future. It discourages research into the true cause and, should I say it, cure for homosexuality. It negates any attempt at even palliative measures to help them. In short, it deprives such people of even a fighting chance to live a reasonably normal and sexually healthy life. The homosexuals ironically become the ultimate victims of the trend designed to help them.
The great challenge here is to do everything in our power to help our homosexual brothers and sisters to cope the situation in which they find themselves. I do not pretend to have all the answers on how best to do this. I firmly believe, however, that normalization is the completely wrong answer.
Social and legal acceptance of homosexuality continues to be pushed by an aggressive completely dedicated minority (whether homosexual or allies of same). Inertia, which almost always infects the majority in a given society, when combined with the determination of the gay activist has led us to the current state of affairs. The formerly unimaginable has become increasingly common place. This trend, for the reasons already set forth, will likely continue. It is a classic example of the insidiousness of gradualism. In this age of political correctness, the label "bigot" is the worst of all pejoratives. The fear indeed terror of such a label is what best suppresses the voice of those who doubt the value of this trend towards normalization. That same pressure is often felt among even those who vigorously oppose the trend.
To equate difference in treatment based on sexual orientation with racial prejudice of past times is the clearest example of shallow propaganda which obscures the truth and does an enormous disservice to the struggle of people of color who have fought to achieve legal and social equality themselves. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts in the now famous Goodridge decision (enabling homosexual marriage in that state) were not willing to extend "sexual orientation" to a constitutionally suspect category like race - notwithstanding their liberal bent! The Supreme Court of Maryland more recently said precisely the same thing. The strength of any analogy always depends on the degree of similarity of the things compared. Our African American brothers and sisters, including many civil rights leaders, were the first to see right through this false analogy.
At this point someone reading my comments might have concluded that I myself am homophobic, mean spirited and, of course, a "bigot". For those that think so - no amount of denial would ever suffice. The balance of this article is not an attempt to do what, in reality, may be futile, but rather to invoke completely honest discourse. How people come to view me personally is totally immaterial to that purpose.
It is now worth repeating five fundamental points:
1. Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and is certainly not a "normal variant" within the human species - whether chosen or not!
2. Acceptance of homosexuality as "normal" does an enormous disservice to society by directly attacking the traditional family.
3. Acceptance of homosexuality as "normal" does an enormous disservice to homosexuals themselves, notwithstanding the placebo effect that is temporarily brought about.
4. Same sex marriage is the epitome of social and legal acceptance.
5. The trend towards "normalization" of homosexuality will probably continue.
I have not mentioned morality per se up to this point. Is homosexual "acting out" immoral or sinful? The traditional Christian answer is yes. Traditional Christian morality, in fact, sanctions only one form of sexual "acting out". I refer, of course, to the conjugal love of a man and woman united in holy matrimony. All else is immoral.
Is it fair (particularly if sexual orientation is determined at birth) for same sex couples to be forever deprived of the ability to intimately and sexually exchange that love as their married heterosexual counterparts can? It does seem enormously burdensome and "unfair" in some sense. A man who betrays his wife through adultery - although "acting out" a normal urge - sins. A homosexual "acting out" with a consenting partner also sins, but the homosexual Christian never has a legitimate outlet for sexual expression. The adulterer clearly does. Who then has sinned greater? God alone can sort it all out. I myself cannot make the ultimate moral judgment in keeping with the scriptural injunctive: judge not!
Does this mean, however, that I must accept the conduct associated with homosexuality, work to make it legally, socially or ecclesiastically acceptable, and even work to promote same sex marriage? No! In my view, all of that must be opposed! So what is the bottom line? The loving "no" must be our answer while remembering that we all have plenty of baggage ourselves to deal with. God alone can lighten the load that we all carry - whatever that may be.
Same Sex Marriage 
Sponsored Links 
Linear Mode
