Christianity and the gays

    One of the most shocking aspects of the ministry of Jesus, to his contemporaries, was His outreach to the outcasts of His day: lepers, tax collectors, prostitutes and sinners. The leaders, both religious and secular, of His day found His association with such people scandalous. This trend continued into the Church after the Lord’s ascension. The most dramatic instance of this was in Corinth, where Saint Paul had success not among the rich, powerful and wealthy of that city, but among the least.  “Not many of you were well-born. . . “ 
    The question is, who are the lepers, the outcasts, sinners and rejects of today?  Moved by the example of Mother Teresa and the example of a friend years ago, I spent a lot of time serving the residents of an AIDS hospice/homeless shelter run by the Missionaries of Charity a few years back. Few things equal the experience of changing the diaper of a grown man who cannot move because of his infirmities, or dressing the bandages of another man whose very blood could infect me with a deadly disease, or counseling still another man who had given up hope and wondered at 3 a.m. what was the best way to kill himself without it being messy.  Earl, for those who may wonder, passed away from natural causes a few days later with the Church’s sacraments.  I’ve rarely felt closer to another human being than in that middle-of-the-night conversation about why it was better that he not take his own life.
    Of course, Mother Teresa was quite insistent that those who hunger today are not necessarily those who live on the streets, or who wallow in poverty in the alleyways of Calcutta, but may be those right in our own families, who hunger, not for bread, but for love. 
    And then, I’m confronted with the current public insistence from those in the LGBT community, and their supporters, for recognition and acceptance.  Are they the lepers, outcasts and sinners of today, who require love, support and mercy?  It would seem so from the cultural insistence on accepting those who profess such a condition, state in life, personality, way of life. 
    Of course, that is the problem. What, exactly, am I supposed to accept, condone, support or advocate?
    A person “comes out” and says, “I’m gay”, or “I’m bi-sexual”.  What is it that he or she is stating? For example, a man states openly, “I’m homosexual.”  Okay. And my reaction should be...what?  If I am supposed to congratulate him, for what am I congratulating? His courage in announcing it publicly? Announcing what? That he has a sexual attraction to other men? I just don’t understand why that is something to congratulate or praise.  It doesn’t matter if he chooses to be so attracted, or not. Why is that something to congratulate? or praise? If he chooses to be so attracted, is that in itself an act of courage?  Or maybe he did not choose to have such an attraction, but does choose to announce in some public way that this is his condition. What’s congratulatory about announcing that?  Is it the fact that having this attraction is often frowned upon or persecuted, and by expressing it he is showing courage in the face of public rejection? I suppose standing against the culture can be a good thing, but many things are contrary to culture and in itself that is not a reason to celebrate something. A large majority of people are opposed to beating other human beings without reason, but not all are. Should a people-beater be praised for standing against the culture?
    Yet the argument is made that a person who has a same-sex attraction is not hurting anyone else, so it is different than doing violence to another person.  I would agree with that. I’d rather have someone with same-sex attraction in a neighborhood who doesn’t beat people over someone who goes about hurting others by violence.  So if some man who announces in some public way that he has a sexual attraction to other men, what is the moral obligation on my part to do anything? Frankly, I don’t see any obligation on my part, unless I am in some position to speak with such a person and see what I can do to help him follow Christ more closely, given his situation. 
    I simply do not understand the societal pressure to advocate for and support the social agenda of this segment of society.  Being told I am biased and discriminatory for not supporting gay marriage is a huge leap from respecting the personhood of someone who has same-sex, dual-sex, whatever-sex attraction. Sure, I respect the personhood of someone who has same-sex attraction. What’s so hard about that? It’s basic humanity.  Does that then obligate me to accept same-sex marriage, for example? Accepting the personhood of others is part of my faith and understanding of humanity. Yet, marriage means something, and two guys or two women getting together just doesn’t match up to that meaning.  It’s not anger or hatred of anyone. In fact, it’s rather non-emotional other than the joy of knowing that when a man and woman are united in a stable relationship, and then when that union leads to new life that something unique has happened: new life, a new human being now exists who otherwise would not be here. 
    So, on a human, natural, Constitutional level, I really don’t care if any particular man or woman has whatever sexual attraction.  I have my preferences for certain types of women.  But to claim some sort of societal acceptance of my or anyone’s personal desires is a dangerous path, especially when separated from the natural situation of human beings.  What is the basis of societal acceptance of personal preferences? What if a general trend should occur that advocates the elimination of certain people for their personal beliefs. Is that a legitimate exercise of Constitutional principles?  Is it the determination of polls, or popularity victories?
    But I digress. Somewhat.
      I really do not understand what I am “supposed” to embrace or accept when a person “comes out”. Some men prefer blondes.  Some prefer brunettes. Some like full-figured gals; others want the model figure type. Is expressing a preference some sort of potential crime, or offense against culture? I just don’t get it.
    So, citizen A likes other men as sexual partners. I find that odd. Or as Hillaire Belloc quipped, “The world is full of double beds, and many a fair maiden heads; this be the case there’s no excuse for sodomy or self-abuse.”  Receiving special government protection for a particular sexual category is simply strange. Especially when such attraction has no societal benefit such as the advancement of race. Doesn’t human life have a claim to special protetion? Maybe not.
    I’ll always try to be kind to others, regardless of their individual struggles. But inserting current societal mores as normative has all sorts of strange consequences.