So, given the latest Rick Warren / Obama stuff, and the comments, by Pope Benedict, it seems we're heading down a downward spiral with this gay rights debate.

At the risk of offending my friends for misspeaking or sheer barbarism, here are my thoughts on the matter, speaking as a former Catholic that still respects the Church and believes in God, though is saddened enough by its actions that he no longer actively practices.

Much of the problem boils down to two concerns:
a) the ambiguity as to what gender and sexuality is, Is it a choice or a natural phenomena? And should that matter?
and
b) Is it "hate" or "bigotry" to criticize or even legally restrict an individual choice? In what circumstances should society be allowed to do this?

To begin with, I feel sexual identity is BOTH a choice and a natural phenomena: There are, for example, plenty of bisexuals. ( I don’t, for example, think that Lindsay Lohan was born homosexual. What if she decides to marry Sam Ronson? ). And yet, there are plenty of people that seem to clearly have been born homosexual (some guestimates say ~10% of the population).

On the other hand, LGBT scholarship has, for the past thirty years or so, tried to demonstrate that gender identity is an individual ‘choice’, not something dictated by genes or society, and that sexual identity is a continuum independent of gender identity (cue a side debate over Kinsey's studies).

Is it possible to have a relationship that respects the ‘institution’ of marriage when it’s based on an individualistic choice? Is that not shakier ground than restricting it to the dictates of the genes for 90% of the population (with, let’s say, 10% being naturally occurring homosexuals)?

On the contrary, I personally know two female friends that have a wonderful, loving marriage, but, to my understanding, both were born heterosexual, never identified as bisexual, and “switched” after they met each other, and “chose” a homosexual identity for themselves since wanted to be together. This is a case that is exactly what I believe religious folks fear - the arbitrariness of gender roles and sexual identity. Yet, even in this "dreaded scenario", the result STILL reinforced the institution of marriage, save for their inability for them to procreate.

You could argue that it’s hard enough to want to spend your life with someone else, regardless of gender role, sexual identity, etc., so why discriminate?

Calling religious folks “bigots” does not help matters. Let’s say I disagree with a life choice you’ve made, say reckless promiscuity, and think that such behavior threatens the cohesion of society. Is it “bigotry” to criticize that life choice? Is it “hate”?

Given the context of homo/bi-sexuality: that in many cases, it may be naturally occuring, but in many others, it’s a “life choice”, how can you call disagreements against those choices “bigotry” or “hate mongering”? It’s much more complicated than that. The Catholic Church, for example, has no problems with recognizing that homosexuality may be a naturally occuring phenomena. Its problem is with any sexual act that has no involvement with pro-creation. That’s why masturbation and married sex with a condom are both sins. Homosexual acts can’t contribute to Motherhood or Fatherhood, so are considered disordered.

It seems that inability to pro-create is one of the larger unavoidable problems with a same-sex union. En masse, the affluent countries are already in the process of committing mass suicide, marrying later, preferring their one designer baby, or being DINKs (dual-income no-kids), and leaving re-population to those who really don't want more kids but enjoy reckless promiscuity (thus raising the quotient of miscreants born) or can't afford/don't believe in birth control. Many have no idea how to fix this, and fear that mainstream same-sex unions will just speed the decline of Western society.

In the end, I do wish people would move past these soundbites and get to the roots of the problem. Respecting the institution of marriage arguably has nothing to do with gender identity or sexual roles, it has to do with personal responsibility to one’s family. This is sorely lacking in plenty of heterosexual cases. (Promiscuity, and the complications it brings when reckless and disrespectful, knows no bounds.) In my opinion, most religious folks aren’t bigots, and aren’t hate mongers - they seriously are concerned with changing a social institution that already is crumbling, and have serious preconceptions of what a homosexual or bisexual marriage might imply to its already shaken stature.

Once we figure out how to rid ourselves of preconceptions, we might actually be able to figure out a way for religious folks (which make up MOST of North America) to actually accept a (state recognized) marriage between same-sex partners, while protecting the institution from behaviour that undermines it and families.