Homosexuals I have known

Proponents of "marriage equality" use a grab bag of arguments (if you can dignify them with the appellation of "arguments") to justify their position. They talk about alleged hate crimes against LGBT individuals. Or suicide. They ask whether you have any "close friends" who are transgender or homosexual. They equate opposition to homosexuality with "hating" homosexuals. 

Since they are appealing to autobiographical experience, I will answer them on their own terms:

I used to work a job where, as it turned out, there was a disproportionate number of homosexuals. Two of them I worked with on a daily basis. Both were lesbians.

One was short and overweight. Had a page-boy haircut. Swore like a Marine sergeant. She cultivated a classic butch-femme demeanor. 

My impression is that she probably had an unhappy childhood. May well have been an unpopular student. The tuff-girl posture was a defense mechanism to mask her sense of rejection and emotional insecurities. In fact, she was a recovering alcoholic. 

Did I hate her? No. Did getting to know her liberalize my theological views of homosexuality? No.

The sad part is that by cultivating the butch-femme pose, she gave up on finding true love in a normal relationship. Gave on finding emotional fulfillment as a wife and mother. It was a statement of despair. 

The other lesbian coworker was a radical feminist and Trotskyite. She was, however, more eligible. More physically appealing. Smart. Articulate.

She later moved in with a man. That didn't surprise me. She got tired of the pretending to be something she wasn't. Got tired of denying her natural needs.  

Moreover, she was likely aware of the fact that the clock was ticking. She was in her 20s. The eligibility window was rapidly narrowing. She had options my other coworker did not, and she exercised an option. 

Did knowing her liberalize my theological views on homosexuality? No. Why should it? It's not as if what I encountered was inconsistent with Biblical theology. 

In my observation, there are two kinds of lesbians. On the one hand there are straight women who adopt lesbianism. There can be various reasons for this. It may be a political statement: consistent feminism. It may be an emotional reaction to disappointment with men, or loss of hope. 

On the other hand, there are lesbians, like some nuns of Sant’Ambrogio, who seem to develop a compulsive sexual appetite for other women. It can be sadomasochistic. 

When I was a student in junior high and high school (back in the 70s), I remember two or three classmates who were picked on by other students.

One of them was bullied, not because he was homosexual, but because he was undersized for his age. One time some classmates locked him in a school locker. 

There was nothing swishy about his demeanor. He was targeted because he was small for his age. That made him an easy, inviting target. 

It's like the runt of the litter. In the wild, they don't survive very long. Sometimes they are cannibalized by the mother or their siblings. Or they are muscled out of the way at nursing time. So they starve. 

Another student was picked on because he was very obese. Students hated him, and he hated them in return. He was bullied, not because he was effeminate, but because he was obese. 

There was another student who was probably picked on. There are students who might as well have "loser" printed on their back. Their body language projects vulnerability and social unease. That makes them irresistible targets for bullies. 

In many public schools, the law of the jungle prevails. It's like a nature show set in the Serengeti, where a Wildebeest calf is separated from the herd, or from its mother. There are many predatory eyes scanning the savannah for an opportunity like that. Unless the calf is reunited with the herd in a few minutes, the lions, leopards, cheetahs, hyenas, and cape hunting dogs are stalking or circling the calf. If it takes refuge in the river, the crocodiles like in wait. And it's that way in public school.   

Finally, there was another student. I originally joined Facebook, not because I'm into social networking, but because a journalism major asked me to review a draft article he'd uploaded on Facebook.

But as long as I had Facebook access, I did what a lot of other Facebook members do, which is using it to check up on old classmates. Find out what became of them. 

Turns out one of them was in a relationship with a man. That didn't surprise me. There was always something a little off about him, but I couldn't place it at the time. Now it clicked.

Back when I knew him, he was a very average kid. Likable in an inoffensive way. A bit soft, perhaps. 

When I found out, years later, that he was homosexual, did that change my view of him? According to the narrative propounded by homosexual activists and "progressive Christians," that should have had one of two effects:

i) I'm a "fundamentalist"–he's homosexual; ergo: I hate him!

ii) I used to be a "fundamentalist" until I found out my classmate was homosexual. Now I'm an open and affirming.

Sorry to disappoint you, but my discovery didn't have either affect. It didn't revolutionize my theology. Why would it? That's a non sequitur.

Rather, I feel sorry for my old classmate. It's sad that he turned out that way. Had I been a Christian at the time, had I known his inclination, perhaps I could have steered him in a better direction. I feel no personal animosity towards my old classmate. 

Despite being a closet homosexual, he's one of the students who wasn't bullied–unlike the straight students I mentioned. Why is that?

That's because homosexuals can pass for heterosexuals. When I attended public school, the homosexual students were invisible. I'd add that statistically, very few students were homosexual. 

Back in the 70s, a schoolboy wouldn't be caught dead coming out gay. In that respect, my classmate was perfectly safe. He could conceal his identity in a way that the fat student and the scrawny student could not. They had no place to hide. 

Anti-bullying policies ignore the most at-risk kids and fixate on kids who have a natural cloak of invisibility, unless they flaunt their homosexuality or gender confusion.

Conversely, anti-bullying policies turn teachers and administrators into bullies: they harras normal kids–especially boys and Christians. 

Someone will no doubt protest: "But people shouldn't have to hide their true identity!"

To which I'd say several things:

i) Homosexuality and gender confusion isn't their true identity. That's a deviation from their true identity.

ii) Christian students shouldn't have to hide their religious identity. Normal boys shouldn't have to hide their masculinity. 

iii) I don't believe in public school, anyway–especially when it becomes a hostile environment for Christians and normal boys. 

iv) I don't think kids should be bullied. But it's liberals who believe in compulsory school attendance. Liberals who want to outlaw homeschooling. Liberals who want to shut down private Christian schools.  

Liberals create conditions which, given fallen human nature, supply bullies with easy targets.

Moreover, in huge high schools in tough neighborhoods, a bullied student doesn't dare report bullies to the authorities. That would make him a "snitch." He'd be far worse off. 

For liberals, public education isn't about teaching kids marketable, vocational skills, but indoctrinating them in radical ideology.

Finally, homosexual activists taunt Christians with the question: "Do you have any close gay friends?"

i) The question is ambiguous. I can befriend someone who doesn't reciprocate. I can be a friend to someone by looking out for his best interests. An anonymous benefactor can be a friend. A good friend. 

ii) If I could go back in time, knowing then what I know now, I'd reach out to my old classmate. Make an effort to befriend him. Intervene. At that age he was more malleable, before the die was cast. Sin is habit-forming. When adolescents are entering into manhood or womanhood, that can be disorienting for some of them. That's a new experience for them. They are learning a new role. Some of them can be pulled in more than one direction. 

iii) But a close friendship is a two-way street. It's not a question of whether a Christian can be friends with a homosexual, but whether the homosexual will let him be their friend. If a homosexual makes acceptance of his lifestyle a precondition of friendship, then, by definition, a Christian can't be his friend. That's because the homosexual won't allow it. 

iv) In addition, close friendship is based on sharing some common interests and/or common values. Based on affection and respect. Natural rapport. In the nature of the case, close friendship is selective. A close friend isn't interchangeable with just anyone or everyone. 

v) Finally, friendship is a very precarious commodity among homosexuals. Homosexual relationships are notoriously brittle. A better question is not the Christian capacity for friendship, but the homosexual incapacity for forming enduring friendships.