By linguistic coups - and an important one, how we refer to people, places and things re-enforces a mindset - all folks who labor under the temptation to seek sexual gratification with persons of the same sex are set apart with these terms as though they are “a breed apart”. That simply is not the case - there is no qualitative difference between the man who struggles with the temptation to a disordered action with another man and who struggles with the temptation to a disordered action with a woman to whom he is not not allowed (by divine law) sexual interaction.

I am 31, unmarried, and it is expected that in the living of my faith I will sleep alone (ok, the dogs jump on the bed) no matter whom I may be tempted to fantasize about. Now with the use of the term “gay” and “homosexual” an image has been painted that there is a class of person who is different - because the object of their temptation is different - who are deserving of the the right to act on them… But is that the case?

Men with well ordered heterosexual attraction who wish to engage in polygamy or have mistresses don’t look for social acceptance and special rights for their pattern of life and lifestyle. Dare I suggest that a far larger group of people are being “discriminated against” by not allowing for “mistress rights”?

Somewhere along the way the lie was propogated that folks who demonstrated special proclivities to a distinct type of non-genitive, non-marital, non-heterogenital sex acts were a classification of people who were deserving of recognition as an alternative group.

Since the divorce of procreation and discipleship from the marriage bed at Lambeth in 1931 (the Anglican meeting where for the first time in Christianity artificial birth control was approved) it stands to reason that if sex can be just for recreation, and that divorcing and moving on for a new partner is allowable… Well I can understand that the foundation for discerning on such matters has been destroyed.