We are a society which loves controversy and polarization, and which seeks to demonize others who disagree with us. This is why we are often at risk when we as Christians discuss such matters as homosexuality or same-sex marriage. The delicate balance is always how we can remain loving people who accept sinners where they are in life, counting ourselves not better, and yet still claim and endorse the moral commands of God. Dilemma though it is, the current clime in the United Stated and around the world which allows for two persons of the same gender to marry and enjoy the rights and privileges of marriage cannot be accepted or endorsed by any genuine believer.
We have come to a point in our nation where one is considered intolerant not only if they do not accept the gay lifestyle, but also if they do not endorse and embrace it: the effort of some of a more liberal bent, will not allow even a 'live and left live' policy while decrying the morality of homosexuality, but continue to condemn those of a moral stance which declares homosexuality as immoral and unhealthy. Since Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, Pentecostals, Orthodox and Conservative and Hasidic Jews, and much of Islam does not endorse the health nor normalcy of the gay lifestyle, the result is a very few condemning a great number of people who while firmly standing for civil rights of all, refuse to accept perversity as a healthy condition.
Homosexuality in history is often seen in increase at the end of a prosperous but decaying and decadent society. It is a symptom of society in decline and the last days of a nation. In the animal kingdom, homosexual behavior has been noted by comparative psychologists as associated with stress and over-crowding. While the extreme left has made massive efforts and leaps forward under the Obama administration for the acceptance of the gay agenda, there remains few parents who wish the lifestyle for the own children, even among the most liberal: there is an implicit knowledge that physical attraction between the same gender flies against nature and the norm, and is counterproductive to the health and well being of society and mental well being.
The notion that some people are 'born gay' as though it were a racial characteristic, is nonsense. Having seen perhaps thousands of babies over the years and at least as many toddlers, I have seen none with a penchant for gay behavior at a time when there is little propensity for sexuality at all, save for normal gender recognition. This observation, easily replicable, indicates that becoming gay has to do with psychological intervention or process, training, or proselytizing. Recent 'Barbie' commercials showing a younger gay boy of about 4 or 5 playing with a Barbie doll, supposedly a tolerance promotion, actually portrays a child too young to experience mature sexuality dressed in what amounts to sado-masochistic garb with leather and metal knobs, and a sporty homosexual hairstyle. The barbie dolls he plays with in the commercial are likewise dressed in a style reminiscent of porn movies more than anything most loving parents would promote to a child of either gender. Homosexual behavior then is learned, and I believe most often comes about from a contorted reaction to violence of a sexual nature against a child, in which the child learns to identify with the aggressor, by becoming like them to allay anxiety and horror over the univited act.
The normalcy of homosexuality likewise has been debated even in the psychological community for years. Before the 50s, it was always seen as an aberration and was contained as a diagnositic category of mental illness. After the Kinsey report in which Kinsey suggested that at least 10 per cent of the population might be homosexual, a political rethinking came about: homosexuality became a mental illness only if one was displeased with their sexuality. Later, the notion that homosexuality was not normal has been declared by some as abnormal, coming full circle. The 'boiling frog' phenomena though now has people with penchants towards pedophilia and even necrophilia declaring that their lifestyles also are merely 'alternative' throwing the concept of morality out the window.
Marriage among Same Sex Partners
The above discussion brings us in fullness to the idea of whether there is even such a thing as homosexual marriage, and the answer, simply is 'no'. It is not even an issue of whether it is right nor wrong, but that two same sex persons living in union as a married couple, are acting out an aberration and cannot, by definition, produce children in any natural way, nor respond to one another in a marital stance between husband and wife. They can only pretend.
One notes among homosexual couples, that one always takes a female stance and one a male stance: they are 'emulating' the normal relationship, not living out an alternative. Further, the male-female role in gay relationships, are exaggerated and unreal, based upon stereotypes of what it means to be male or female: the 'femme' character dresses to the hilt, wears extremely prissy and over-feminine garb, talks about house, home and family in prissy and exaggerated ways. The 'butch' character over emphasizes male characteristics, is usually tough, unfeeling, etc, in essence playing out problems with the roles, not coming to terms with some 'new' lifestyle'. There is not a marriage, but the acting out and imitation, in a mocking stance of what the partners perceive marriage and gender roles as.
By definition then, marriage is only between a male and female, eminently for the production of family and children, or the stability of individuals when that is not possible, both for the parties and for society's stability as well. We hold legal protection of the relationship for the sake of genealogies, the passing of inheritance, benefits, health records, the training of children etc. All experiments which have attempted group raising of children or the institutionalized raising of children have failed miserably: the family is still and remains the only possibility of fertile ground for healthy, moral and responsible individuals. This is even more the case for believers, who pass the knowledge of the Lord and the ways of the Lord onto children at a formative age.
Our society allows for unions between homosexual couples in which they can declare loyalty and support to one another, set up house, etc. This is a change from the past in which all acts of homosexuality were illegal. I do not believe, nor will ever endorse the ideal of homosexual marriage, or the employment of homosexuals in the Church, or even membership, since the Scriptures clearly, very clearly decry the act as an abomination and spiritual reprobacy, or in other words, spiritual death. The Word is still the word, even if we love and sorrow for people who become entrapped, sometimes through no fault of their own in gay behavior.
Marriage as an institution was first created by God and taught in the scriptures. Even when such men as David and Solomon betrayed a monogamous union for concubines and multiple wives, their behavior was seen as wrong, and both they and Israel suffered for it. The proposition here is not one of who can marry, but what marriage is: it is a union between male and female for the protection of the society and the young. Any other formulation is not marriage, only a pretense or distortion.
Tolerance towards individuals does not mean having to accept or believe that all of their behaviors are healthy or moral. We are called to love all people regardless of beliefs, behaviors and lifestyles, we are not called in tolerance to have to accept immoral stances in others.