One issue that seems to preoccupy modern religious debates is homosexuality. We believe that this is actually a cluster of interconnected issues.

 

At the most fundamental level, we believe that each person must have a personal relationship with God, and that this is deeper than one's relationship (of any kind) with any other person. Here it's significant to note that the ancient religions rarely speak of sexual preferences, begging the question of how such an "important" issue was so neglected. The plain fact is that spirituality is far deeper than sexual preference.

 

Yet most societies frown on homosexuality. We should, of course, expect the heterosexual culture to dominate, as most people will always be raised by heterosexual couples. But there's more to it than just the fact that the heterosexual culture is passed from parent to child, while the homosexual culture is not. Child-rearing couples bear the enormous burden of bringing up the next generation. So societies tend to see homosexuals, like childless heterosexuals, as free-loaders, and only parents command full respect. Homosexuals who want that respect must develop a reputation for being as dedicated to the good of society, in their own way, as parents.

 

This raises the next question concerning adoption by homosexual couples. We believe that the critical measures in good parenting are the moral fiber of the parents and the stability of the relationship. Morality is a matter of including the needs of others in our efforts, and contributing to the stability and vitality of the society. It is not a matter of sexual preference.

 

This raises yet another issue concerning homosexual marriage. Without the encouragement of marital vows, we should not expect homosexual relationships to be statistically as stable.

 

In the end, all of this forms a chicken-and-egg problem. If homosexual marriages were accepted, and furthermore had the reputation of being as stable as heterosexual marriages, and if homosexuals developed the reputation of being as dedicated to the welfare of future generations (by raising adopted children, and other selfless endeavors), then they would command the same respect as heterosexuals. And then society would accept their marriages as legitimate, and sexual preference would not be a criterion in the adoption process.

 

As is always the case, the onus is on those wishing to be accepted to initiate the process, by putting forth the effort necessary to earn the respect that they desire. Those who want to be respected just because they are people do not understand the meaning of the word.

 

This, in fact, is our attitude to all forms of prejudice (sexual, racial, cultural, etc.). It is the obligation of all decent people to give everyone else the chance to prove themselves. But then those people have to prove themselves. People who want free lunches, and then want to be respected like those who paid for them, deserve the insincere patronization that they get. It takes hard work to be truly decent, and society only bestows its richest reward (i.e., respect) on those who do the work.

 

Please remember that this is not a system centered on political correctness — our obligation here is to eternal truths.

 

So we call on all people to judge individuals on the basis of intrinsic merit at the individual level. If we are lazy, we might judge individuals on the basis of the categories into which they fall, such as sex, sexual preference, race, religion, etc. And we should expect others to be lazy, not acknowledging that we are real people with distinct characters. But the value in this world is in its humanity, not in the way people can be categorized.