What's all this, then? Apparently, U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) has come down against the practice of homosexuality. Or, maybe that's the best I can do with ten broken minutes of Bill O'Reilly's radio program. Anyhow, I don't know what Santorum's deal is, but it's high time for him and the religious right to grow up about the whole gay thang. Attention, ladies and gentlemen: lesbians and homosexuals are out and about and ain't going anywhere. What, are you going to witness to them and set them back down on the straight and narrow? That is to ask: are you going to insist on the non-solution of artificial "change" of what is, to them, perfectly natural? Grow up.
The civil recognition of marriage was necessitated by the question of property rights (e.g., Who's a legitimate heir? What does a survivor inherit? Etc.). It also serves social cohesion by promoting the stability of the nuclear family (let's not kid ourselves about what marriage does to promote monogamy). Now, how are either of these issues mutually exclusive with the purposes of gay marriage and the free practice of homosexual love between consenting adults? It is the very limit of arrogance to deny homosexuals the benefits of marriage because they aren't heterosexuals. And it is outrageous that homosexual love should actually be illegal in the Great State of Texas. Why is that? What should the law care?
I personally find the idea of homosexual intimacy to be repellent and alien, but that's only because it would be an unnatural act for me. But not so for my homosexual friends; to them, what I would find to be natural and desirable would be distasteful (as it were).
But, what the hell? All this talk about homosexual and heterosexual is simplistic crap, as though the whole of a man's identity could only be understood by segregating the animal from the cerebral. The day must come that these identities are recognized and accepted. Nature demands it.