When in public, homosexual and lesbian couples OUGHT to be willing to act the way ordinary friends and ordinary roommates would act. There is simply no need for them to publicize and flaunt their sex life. There is also such a thing as celibacy. It is possible for people with same-sex feelings to choose not to act on those feelings. Indeed, I believe that God expects those with same-sex feelings to choose to be celibate, given that the homosexual and lesbian lifestyles are SINFUL. Celibacy also minimizes the risk of catching a sexually transmitted disease. Reparative or conversion therapy would presumably not be necessary in the case of celibacy either, whatever its merits or demerits otherwise. Moreover, if reparative or conversion therapy includes sexual abuse, including engaging in sexual activity with a person of the opposite sex, it is certainly evil.
However, if homosexuals and lesbians insist on practicing their lifestyle despite its sinfulness, they can at least limit practicing the lifestyle to the privacy of their homes. Heterosexual married couples normally limit their sex life to the privacy of their homes. If homosexual and lesbian couples limited their sex life to the privacy of their homes, and did not tell anybody else about it, the rest of us would have no way of knowing about it. Therefore, we could not possibly discriminate against them for engaging in the lifestyle. One of the problems with discrimination against blacks is that black people cannot hide the color of their skin. Therefore, they cannot just “stay in the closet” in order to solve the problem.
When it comes to adopting children, the needs of the children OUGHT to come first. Since it is clear that children fare best with both a mother AND a father, adoption agencies have every right to prefer heterosexual married couples as parents for adoptive and foster children, and laws prohibiting them from doing so are contrary to God’s commandments, and are therefore EVIL. It is one thing for consenting adults to engage in a sinful lifestyle in the privacy of their homes; it is quite another thing for them to impose that sinful lifestyle on innocent children, or anyone else for that matter. Of course, those engaging in the homosexual or lesbian lifestyle, even in the privacy of their homes, and even in the absence of innocent children, would still have to answer to God sooner or later.
Homosexuals and lesbians have a LEGAL obligation to limit their sexual activity to consenting partners; they do NOT have the right, either legally or morally, to impose their sexual activity on unwilling partners. For example, in the work place, they do NOT have the right, either legally or morally, to sexually harass or assault their co-workers. Of course, heterosexuals do not have the right, either legally or morally, to sexually harass or assault their co-workers either. In addition, adults are COMPLETELY FORBIDDEN from sexually abusing children, both legally and morally, whether the sexual activity is heterosexual or homosexual.
God’s commandments take precedence over ALL man-made laws whatsoever, if there is a conflict. If civil law mandates actions unquestionably contrary to God’s commandments, one would have an ABSOLUTE DUTY to disobey the civil law in question, even at the risk of suffering the legal consequences. Of course, those who pass or attempt to enforce such morally evil laws are DOING EVIL. Laws that mandate active cooperation and participation in a same-sex wedding are unquestionably contrary to God’s commandments, and MUST as a matter of conscience be disobeyed, whatever the legal consequences. Therefore, Kim Davis in Kentucky had a DUTY to disobey the law that she broke requiring her to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and those who punished her for doing so were DOING EVIL. If the state is determined to violate people’s freedom of conscience, it will be necessary to try to make it as costly as possible for the state to do so. That could be one benefit of going to jail rather than obeying a civil law that is unquestionably contrary to God’s commandments.
To conclude, the legal rights of ordinary friends and ordinary roommates, along with “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” OUGHT to be enough to deal with any unjust discrimination that homosexuals and lesbians might otherwise face. This would seem to be the proper way for a pluralistic society to both respect the legal rights of homosexuals and lesbians, and also the freedom of religion and freedom of conscience of those who believe that the homosexual and lesbian lifestyles are sinful. If homosexuals and lesbians did not publicize their sex life, they should not have any problem receiving services in any area unrelated to one’s sex life, since those providing the services would presumably then be unaware of their sex life. The Supreme Court made the correct decision in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case.
