Of course it is not full acceptance, although I am referring to practices, not homosexuals. But it is not denunciation, either.
No, I did not try to teach him full acceptance, merely tolerance. But tolerance is more than "not expressing it", it means teaching him treat homosexuals with consideration, as one would anyone. In fact, he had at least one uncloseted friend in high school.
I used to pretend that I didn't care at all about homosexuality. Interestingly, on more than one occasion the friend in question took that as signalling that I was latently gay, and tried to hit on me. In each case, I tried to put the person off gently, but my immediate response was to burst out laughing. Nowadays, if it need not come up, I do not discuss the matter, but I am more honest with myself, and therefore, if need be, more honest with gays I may discuss it with. Since they find the idea of having sex with a woman repugnant, they do not expect me to have a different reaction to gay sex. Since that does not mean they have contempt for women, they understand that I do not have contempt for them. I wish you could get it as well.
Your mirror has too much of a pc warp.
The discrimination in the case of homosexual unions is just as well- founded, and perhaps more, than rules like the one excluding foreign born Americans from becoming President. It is not just a visceral dislike, but based considerations like the necessity of heterosexuality to the propagation of the species; the adaptiveness of the genitalia to sexual bipolarity; and the confusion sown by forcing the majority to go against a reasonable moral judgment, by making it a civil rights matter, thus potentially subject to litigation. |
