If homosexuality is to be considered a sin no longer, all because it corresponds with one’s sexual desires; and if one’s sexual desires should not be repressed if one’s sexual desires constitute one’s identity; what other up-till-now
adherent abhorrent behavior, along with all recognized “normal” behavior, could be used to justify breaking the clearly outlined command of God, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”?
Countless men are walking away from marriages and being praised for it. “Brave” and “courageous” are what they’re called. They succumb to desires which for some reason have become attached to their nature and demand to be respected. The wife and children are mentioned only as a sidebar to the “valor” of the adulterer, and the clearly delineated commands of God are relegated to a dusty “suggestion” box.
Anthony Baker is right that even the church is redefining sin, excusing some and in some cases applauding the courage of the sinner.
We’re all sinners. I won’t pick up a stone against a gay man or woman, or even one who can’t figure out which category fits them. Yet sin is wrong for more than one reason: The damage caused by some who are simply following their heart, or whatever…that damage is permanent in the lives of their families.
What then of the regular adulterer? What then of any number of definers by which one self-identifies? Fill in the blank with whatever you want – voyeur, philanderer, exhibitionist, pedophile, scumbag. Who are we to ostracize any of these if in the event of coming out of their own closets they bring about the destruction of a family unit? Should we not praise them for being brave?
(UPDATE, fixed a typo.)