I could not put my finger on why accepting homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality could change civilization. My 12-year-old son was asking me about it. This article is a great explanation, but NOT meant for him. I guess I shall have to figure out how to sum all this up for a 12-year-old now.
I wonder what Dennis would say about how homosexuals should live today. Especially those who are religious. I know that some choose to put aside their orientations and live hetero, married lives. What does he say about the others? I am guessing that he would say they should be tolerated as a non-mainstream way of life and that we should always keep our focus on married love and bringing up the next generation. Hard to do that in this day of no passing judgement. It seems to slide either towards "Queer Eye" (glorification) or "queerbaiting" (prejudice). Hard to have it right down the middle, but I suppose right down the middle would be what's best for civilization.
Maybe gays need to accept their rightful places as extras in the play of Western Civ, enjoy their roles, and forget about trying out for the lead roles.
To my mind, the religious arguments are not the ones to use. Not because they're 'wrong', but because they are meaningless to anyone who does not accept the religion on which they're based. Rather, conservatives should focus on some secular arguments:
Although the term "marriage" is used on the one hand to mark the joining of two individuals for their finite lifetimes, it usualy marks something much deeper: the joining of two families and the creation of a third. The former aspect of marriage can only last a lifetime, but the latter aspects can last indefinitely.
Although not all families need to be stable for society to hold together, the percentage of stable families is critically low. Too many people today have no idea what it means to have a stable family; if this is not remedied within a generation or two, society will completely fall apart. Whether or not homosexuals are responsible for the widespread breakdown of the family structure, allowing them to apply the term "marriage" to their "alternative family units" will make it harder to re-establish what "marriage" and "family" have historically meant, and must mean if society is to hold together.
While I would not--unlike some here--go so far as to say that homosexuals should be absolutely forbidden from adopting children, I would suggest that a male/female couple is generally going to be better than a single male, a single female, a male/male couple, or a female/female couple. If an orphan's only living relative happens to fall into one of the latter categories, it may be better for him to be adopted by the relative than placed with strangers. In the absense of such factors, however, I would think heterosexual couples seeking to adopt would be better candidates.