Clearly, homosexual activity is not only statistically abnormal, but biologically maladaptive: we could not survive as a species if it became normal to be attracted to members of the same sex. This is the basis of Johannes's position, essentially.
Where Johannes errs is in reckoning how to react to the presence of a homosexual predeliction. Although homosexuality may be a choice in some instances, in most cases it appears to be a either a glitch in the wiring, or in the "software", that is deeply rooted, and for which there is no reliable cure. Yes, there are testimonies to anti- homosexual ministries, but relying on miracles puts an undue burden on the homosexual as citizen.
At the point where someone appears to be a homosexual, it is idle to condemn him for an abnormality over which he has no control, and the question becomes whether there is harm in ameliorating his situation. For example, we do not condemn someone with myopia for wearing glasses, or someone with polio for using braces. By natural law reasoning alone, we cannot condemn homosexual acts, which are not otherwise destructive to society. The question is one of balancing the imposition on homosexuals against the friction with society. Is it worth it to condemn homosexuals to a life of fear of exposure, or, if conforming to social rules, a life divorced from erotic affection, in order to avoid some social consternation? Most of us, on the basis of reason alone, would say no.
This does not solve all question arising out of a general toleration of homosexuality. For example, I am against putting homosexual unions on the same footing as marriage, but in favor of some civil union which enables homosexuals to commingle assets and establishes rights of attorney and inheritance in an orderly and convenient way. If some liberal church wants to perform a ceremony in conjunction with the licensure, I would not object. I just would distinguish between marriage and this civil union...... |
