I remember the first time I had ever heard of homosexuality or homosexual communities such as San Francisco. It was in my 9th grade health class on the subject of AIDS. There were 10,000 people diagnosed with AIDS at that time, it was a new disease striking mostly homosexuals. I read up about this new disease called AIDS in the school library and I was amazed to learn that there was such a thing as a “gay community” where homosexuals gathered together to be near their own kind. The very idea of a “homosexual” was rather shocking but the idea that there were groups of homosexuals concentrated together in certain locations was even more shocking. Of course such “homosexual communities” then proved to be breeding grounds for new sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS. So for me my first exposure to the idea of homosexuality was derivative of the new disease called AIDS. Homosexuality and AIDS were very tightly linked together in my mind. The idea of homosexuality being a cultural issue or that homosexuals had “rights” or that homosexuals were “discriminated against” or that being homosexual was “OK” or even more radically that homosexuality was equivalent to heterosexuality in moral terms; all these things were absent. During high school I don’t think there was a single student who was gay out of my school of 1,000 students, there was certainly no student who was “openly gay.” Also the subject of homosexuality was never brought up in any classroom setting except for the one time in my health class I already mentioned. I’m not talking about ancient history here; I’m talking about 25 years ago.
Today it looks like the previously unthinkable and obviously ridiculous idea that homosexuality and heterosexuality are morally equivalent to each other is now the majority opinion of the Supreme Court. Being the majority opinion of the Supreme Court means that homosexual and heterosexual equivalence will soon likely be “the law of the land” and official dominant cultural ideology. Those who adhere to the commonsensical and self-evident notion that homosexuality is “abnormal” and “strange” and therefore dysfunctional will be shunned as bigots and said to be irrational or in the throes of religious dogma. This is a very radical change from my high school days 25 years ago. Such a change would have seemed unthinkable to me if someone was to have asked me what the world would be like in 25 years time. However the unthinkable is now everyday lived reality.
What most concerns me about this is how a heterosexual man can be manly or masculine if he believes that his heterosexuality is not an affirmatively positive attribute. If he sees himself as morally equivalent to a homosexual then that implies there is no heroism or higher moral purpose to loving women; that he has no particular or special role to play in a woman’s life as a man, that in effect being a man makes no difference and has no purpose. This is the antithesis of masculinity. Masculinity is about embracing ones identity and purpose as a man; homosexual acceptance is about denying ones masculinity and denying the value of being a man, denying the particular purpose and role of the man. The same thing of course is true for the woman in reverse. How can the heterosexual woman be proud of her femininity and embrace her femininity if she sees herself as morally equivalent to and not superior to a lesbian?
In addition to the spurious claim being promoted that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent to each other in a moral sense we are also being told that homosexual parenting is morally equivalent to heterosexual parenting. This is part of the overall claim that the homosexual is functionally equivalent to the heterosexual. This lie that children don’t need both a mother and a father is particularly damaging. It is of course damaging to the particular children who are condemned to live in a homosexual household but in addition it teaches the heterosexual man and woman that not only does their masculinity and femininity serve no purpose of importance on behalf of the opposite sex but that furthermore their masculine and feminine attributes serve no role or purpose in the raising of children and the teaching of children how to be a man, how to be a woman, and how to relate to the opposite sex. Indeed it is necessary to have both masculine and feminine models of behavior and interaction just to socially fit in and make friends.
Here is the compelling testimony of Robert Oscar Lopez who was raised by two lesbian “moms” regarding the social disadvantages he suffered due to his lack of exposure to male role models or even women acting in a normal heterosexual typically feminine capacity:
“My peers learned all the unwritten rules of decorum and body language in their homes; they understood what was appropriate to say in certain settings and what wasn’t; they learned both traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine social mechanisms.
Even if my peers’ parents were divorced, and many of them were, they still grew up seeing male and female social models. They learned, typically, how to be bold and unflinching from male figures and how to write thank-you cards and be sensitive from female figures. These are stereotypes, of course, but stereotypes come in handy when you inevitably leave the safety of your lesbian mom’s trailer and have to work and survive in a world where everybody thinks in stereotypical terms, even gays.
I had no male figure at all to follow, and my mother and her partner were both unlike traditional fathers or traditional mothers. As a result, I had very few recognizable social cues to offer potential male or female friends, since I was neither confident nor sensitive to others. Thus I befriended people rarely and alienated others easily. Gay people who grew up in straight parents’ households may have struggled with their sexual orientation; but when it came to the vast social universe of adaptations not dealing with sexuality—how to act, how to speak, how to behave—they had the advantage of learning at home. Many gays don’t realize what a blessing it was to be reared in a traditional home.”
Thankfully there are not many children being raised in homosexual households. According to the 2010 Census (in the United States) of the 73.9 million children in households 161,000 children lived in male homosexual households and 289,000 children lived in female homosexual households; combined that is 0.6% of children living in homosexual households. The legitimization of homosexuality however is not only a matter of the harm done to children assigned to homosexual “parents,” it needs to be seen that the legitimization of homosexuality is first and foremost a de-legitimization of heterosexual masculinity and femininity. To claim that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent to each other is to claim that masculinity and femininity have no value and serve no purpose because masculinity is a complement to femininity and femininity is a complement to masculinity; the complementary nature of masculinity and femininity only being able to be expressed through the heterosexual joining of the masculine and the feminine. To be a man gains its purpose through the man’s interaction with woman; to be a woman gains its purpose through the woman’s interaction with man.
The homosexual has denied to himself or herself the sacred joining with the opposite sex; in this way the homosexual has thrown away their special and unique value as either a man or a woman. To then make the claim that the homosexual has lost nothing in this process is to claim that what the homosexual has thrown away; their special attribute as a masculine man or a feminine woman; had no value in the first place. This then is to make the claim that masculinity itself has no value and that femininity itself has no value; that the very essence of being a man has no value and the very essence of being a woman has no value; that there is no special purpose to being a man or being a woman.
I absolutely reject the idea that masculinity is morally neutral; masculinity is in fact a profound and fundamental human good, it is a necessary component to a functional life as a man and it is a necessary part of the moral order. Femininity likewise is not morally neutral but a positive good, a necessary part of the functional life of a woman and a necessary part of family life and the well being of society. Don’t let anyone tell you being masculine or feminine is wrong; be proud of your heterosexual identity and hold onto it and recognize it as the precious and valuable gift from God that it is. Don’t let anyone tell you you are a “bigot” because you recognize the importance and purpose of being a man or being a woman. The world needs men who act like men and women who act like women; without the masculine man and feminine woman joined together in heterosexual union life itself cannot be newly created and healthy family life providing for children’s basic psychological needs will not be present.
Man and woman is the core duality of life; man was created for woman and woman was created for man; anything else is a corruption of the natural order, a perversion of what it means to be a man or a woman. The majority on the Supreme Court can make corrupt and immoral “the law of the land” but they can never alter what morality or the truth is because morality and truth come from God, not from the Supreme Court. Men will still be men and women will still be women even if at some point in the future the Supreme Court dictates “gay marriage” a nationwide “constitutional right.” For that I thank God.
For my previous thoughts on the importance and meaning of masculinity and femininity I recommend these two prior articles of mine: