And the gay debate rages. Today I read a few bits and pieces by Andrew Sullivan, a columnist and blogger who happens to be a homosexual. He had some interesting thoughts in his Time magazine piece, and his blog is hitting nails left and right. It’s a bit overwhelming, leaving me wondering just how far I want to click.

But the few slices I’ve been reading have been proving my earlier point about getting to know a person in relation to a fiery issue. In addition to being gay, Sullivan is Catholic. If you thought it was rough being Episcopalian right now, try being a gay Catholic. One of Sullivan’s arguments is for basic civil rights for gay couples. Here I find myself wondering, why not? There’s a difference between the church’s sacramental institution of marriage, and a legally recognized marriage. Why do we wish hardship on a man because of what we perceive as sin in his life? Especially a sin that doesn’t harm us in any way. We’re not talking about giving health benefits to the spouses of murderers or rapists here.

Sullivan also has me thinking about the surprise summer TV hit, “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,” a Bravo show that NBC re-aired to rave reviews. If you’re still living behind plastic sheeting and duck tape, it’s a reality show where five gay men give a straight guy a total life makeover to help him win the girl. The liberals are cheering for sexual equality on TV, the conservatives are tearing for good old days when they only had to complain about heterosexual sex jokes. I’ve seen less than five minutes of the show, but I’m confused why homosexuals are championing a show that reinforces gay stereotypes. I would think a real triumph would be getting a character on national TV that isn’t flamboyantly gay, just regularly gay.

A few days ago I made the comment that I lean towards God’s initial design for sex, that doesn’t seem to leave room for homosexuality. It’s the old “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” argument. It’s the same argument that says marriage is for procreation, that is has to serve a productive purpose; therefore same-sex marriage doesn’t fit the plan.

I’ve been reading Marva Dawn’s Sexual Character (read my review), and she’s raising some issues that really sink that boat. Despite what society likes to think today, life isn’t all about having sex and making babies. What about infertile couples? Marriage still means something to them, despite the inability to bear children. What about paralyzed or otherwise handicapped couples? Marriage still means something to them, despite the inability to bear children or even have sex. There’s a marital relationship that is both unproductive and unsexual, by society’s standards. Yet I think you’d be hard pressed to say the marriage is invalid.

There is diversity within humanity, and I think sometimes we need to understand that. Christians don’t usually like the word tolerance, because we’re told we don’t have it, but quite frankly they’re right. We need to get it, simply to deal with our own.