Well, I read OSCs Op-ed on "What Right Is Really At Stake?" There is a lot one can say about it. For example, he says
1) he has 'plenty of gay friends who are committed couples.'
2) being gay is a 'sexual dysfunction'
3) 'Heterosexual pair-bonding has been at the heart of human evolution from the time we divided off from the chimps.'
4) ' Normalizing a dysfunction will only make ours into a society that corrodes any loyalty to it, as parents see that our laws and institutions now work against the reproductive success (not to mention happiness) of the next generation.'
5) 'a family in which children grow up with male and female parents to model appropriate gender roles.'
The nucleus of the article appears to be the label 'marriage.' I think he feels 'marriage' is copyrighted by religion. I think he could have made that point without interjecting anything else. The rest (2) - (5) for example were not needed less he thinks there is a link between the two. Which I think he does.
But it is confusing, I think if he continually rubbed 'sexual dysfunction' into his gay friends noses, I imagine it wouldn't take long for him to lose his gay friends. But certainly writing his opinion in the public domain, regarding homosexuality as a 'sexual dysfunction' is not respectful to his gay friends. So, either his gay friends are not close friends or they are only friends in his mind.
In regards to (3): If he is so religiously diehard, I do not know why he excepts human evolution from ape ancestors. This breaks a common stereotype, but fine, he's ok with it. He has a right to his opinions.
I think I can link (4) and (5) together. Equating marriage with being gay will, in his opinion, drag the religious institution of marriage down with it. Doing so corrodes our loyalty to society as a result. And a proper way to raise children is in marriage between a man and a women. As for my opinion, I'd probably give more weight to his comments if only religion really treated 'marriage' so sacrosanct. But, does not~50% of all marriages end in divorce. If the institution of marriage is that important, then why have I not heard about churches not allowing male/female marriages to end. 'Your unhappy together, to bad, you have to stay together.' But I guess it is ok with God if a man and women got together, spawn a few offspring, only then learning the marriage is only based on sex, in which case, getting a divorce is OK. Nevermind the litany of potential troubles that children of divorced parents now have to figure out because their parents failed to. I am not against divorce, I'm simply pointing out the hypocrasy of OSCs position as I see it.
Look, if one's belief:
allows one to feel God did not create man/woman in one go (Adam/Eve),
lets you support and condemn friends in the same breath,
links 'marriage' with homosexuality as the greatest corrosive agent in society,
makes one happy, then if it makes another one happy to chose a partner of the same sex, then your are right to have that right. And in the United States, if you have a right to an aspect of personal liberty, it is also LEGAL. Therefore OSCs picture of what 'marriage' is, is just as LEGAL as that painted by a homosexual.
I think people like labels because of all of the terms they think everyone knows is linked with it. Why not just ask that people act responsibly. If those of strong religious belief really want a term that only applies to them, signifying to the world their moral supremacy. Then I'm sorry. The 'marriage' ship has already sailed. Instead, coin a new term, and dictate its use only in specific religious venues and social circles. Then I think those religious ilk will not find homosexuals coming after that new term. All they want is for their feelings/beliefs, no matter how different, to be as valid as anyone else. If creating a new term sounds preposterous, trying telling that to born again Christians about the 'rapture.'