This is probably the most important statement in the entire homosexual debate because it explains the overwhelming desire of most heterosexuals to ignore reality and support homosexual behavior.
To the "reality" point: I have pointed out repeatedly that human bodies are heterosexual. There is no question that humanity is heterosexual. Without the two sexes joining together to reproduce there would be no humanity. This biological fact (as separated from the spiritual and emotional ties that go with sexual behavior) is obvious to any casual observer and should not need debate. So why does it continue to be debated?
The real problem is with having a concept called "sexual deviancy." People don't like the concept. They don't like the idea that they may be deviants. I wouldn't like it. And the problem comes with drawing the line. Is sexual deviancy anything outside of the missionary position with the lights off? Is it OK to do it with the lights on? How about other positions? How about oral sex?
Some people have a hard time with the normal balance that life requires and always want to go to extremes. Either all sexual behaviors are OK (Hey, we like our sex a little rough. Sometimes she gets bruised. You got a problem with that?) or nothing that is not geared toward having children is acceptable (You mean you use birth control?). (Note to Catholics - I'm talking social belief here, not religious belief. I am not intending to comment on the religious belief that birth control is outside the will of G-d. I'm not qualified to make such a comment nor to challenge the Magesterium.) Real life exists in the balance. Honest debate would seek the balance, not the poles. But we are pulled toward the poles anyway because that's the best we can do.
What do I think is an honest balance? I think it's establishing as the norm that sex is intended to be a free and loving expression of the committment of a man and a woman who have committed themselves to each other for life. I believe we can be tolerant of expressions outside of the normative as long as those expressions don't become destructive of our way of life. I believe we have gone too far toward tolerance, such as the "free love" expressions that have lead to the breakdown in the black family and the near destruction of their culture.
I think it's sufficient for schools to not teach this, but to allow the normative expression to be the one that is modelled until well into High School. I believe that parents are the ones with the responsibility to deal with their children's questions about sexuality - both identity and practice.
I also believe that if we could stop polarization of another kind - that only macho men are true men and only bubbilicious babes are true women - that we would solve a lot of the sexual identity problems we have. I know lots of effeminate boys who are affirmed in their basic masculinity by their fathers who grow up to be effeminate, heterosexual men. There's a range of masculine and feminine in all of us, with men balancing toward masculine and women balancing toward feminine. But being a macho woman does not make one a dyke, and being a "girlie-man" does not make one gay. If we could just understand that, and help our teens understand that, much of the rest of this debate would quietly go away.
</soap box>
Shalom.
Very well said!