The mere existence of “bisexual” people underscores the fact that homosexuality is not an inherent unchangeable characteristic, but instead underscores that homosexuality is a “PREFERENCE” which indicates that the person is engaged in a conscious CHOICE as to whether or not to be homosexual, bisexual, or just plain promiscuous.
Just because someone is “oriented” towards a behavior does not mean they are compelled by their nature to engage in that behavior.
You could just as easily say that robbers and thieves are oriented towards covetousness and that we should therefore tolerate and embrace their lifestyle by legalizing theft and robbery.
The italicized is the final sentence of the article, and it is a sentence with which we both agree. The remainder of the article is, in my opinion, very poorly written, and I can't really say what the man was affirming or not affirming.
I thought perhaps he said that since we aren't a Judeo-Christian culture, then we can't force our values on other, and at a minimun should be open to a same-sex union that is not called marriage.
Honestly, though, P-M, this is so poorly written that if the esteemed doctor were to say, "NO, I said the exact opposite!", then I'd be compelled to reply, "Perhaps, Sir, but it's so poorly written that no one can really tell what you wrote."
I guess that makes it drivel, that and the possibility that he just endorsed same sex unions.
If I am missing something in this chaotic article, then I would honestly appreciate being corrected by either of you brothers in Christ.