Are Gays Exceptional and if so, Why? – UPDATES

My column at First Things today poses a question prompted by last Sunday’s Tony Awards, during which the prize-winning dramatist and AIDS activist Larry Kramer remarked,

“To gay people everywhere, whom I love so dearly, The Normal Heart is our history. I could not have written it had not so many needlessly died. Learn from it and carry on the fight. Let them know that we are a very special people, an exceptional people, and that our day will come.”

Passing quickly over whether exceptionalism is a more virtuous notion than we have been led to believe, Kramer’s words seems to open a door to wondering, which Gregory of Nyssa said was essential to knowing, and it got me asking, what if Kramer is right? 

[what if] homosexuals are in fact “special and exceptional others,” whose distinctions are meant to be noted. Perhaps they are a “necessary other” created and called to play a specific role in our shared humanity.
[…]
Assuming homosexuals are—as per Lady Gaga (and perhaps Matthew 19:12)—“born this way,” the question of purpose arises. Those who believe in a God who said, “I know the plans I have for you; plans of fullness, not of harm . . .” and who creates nothing by accident, must ask why God would love into being this “other,” which the church—objectively considering form and function—defines as “disordered?” Such created creatures then must be recognized as loved into being, and they cannot be denied their God-given human dignity, with their “otherness” recognized as part of a plan.

The secularists—having only science and their instincts to go on—might actually have a more difficult time understanding the purpose of “unplanned, randomly-created” homosexuality. One imagines they could make peace with the idea that homosexuals are here to teach the rest of us “tolerance” and to open our minds, but that would presume a blueprint, a creator and plan, and so again the question becomes tougher for secularists than for believers. If secularists deduce that there is “no purpose” to homosexuality (and “why would anyone choose to live like that?” resides mere inches away from “how can we bring a baby into the world knowing his life will be full of challenges”) then they will be more easily able to dispose of gays than would the supposed hate-mongerers in the churches.

Please read the whole thing, or you may seriously misconstrue my meaning. And let me head a few of you off at the pass, so to speak; I am not advocating for gay marriage or “against truth.” I am advocating for people being allowed to think about homosexuality beyond “they’re noble victims” from one extreme and “they’re an abomination” from the other.

Again, that full quote by Gregory of Nyssa: ideas lead to idols; only wonder leads to knowing.

Meanwhile, it almost feels providential: Mark Shea has a must-read over at Crisis Magazine, where he talks about concupiscence, homosexuality, gluttony and grace, in what I think is a good start in articulating the Catholic position and illustrating our common challenges to holy living:

Christ does not redeem us from the effects of the Fall by brutalizing us. My take on homosexuality (to which I feel no temptation) is the same as my take on gluttony (a temptation with which I have struggled all my life). Both are disordered appetites that we may, but do not have to, express in actions. Depending on where we are in the cultural spectrum, we will tend to be excusing or merciless.

On the cultural Left, homosexuality, both in temptation and act, is relentlessly excused, while gluttony is vilified as disgusting and immoral. Indeed, even people (such as those struggling with hypothyroidism) who are overweight through no fault of their own tend to get written off as pigs in that milieu.

Meanwhile, on the cultural Right, gluttony is a peccadillo, while even the whiff of homosexual orientation is treated as contemptible. What few tend to do is treat disordered appetites as disordered appetites or distinguish between temptation and act, concupiscence and sin. Indeed, many Christians no longer even know what concupiscence is. So: a brief refresher.

Baptism removes original sin and confers the life of the Trinity. But it is grace, not magic. And because of this, the Church teaches that the effects of original sin remain, much as we can still have a “trick knee” after the knee surgery is finished and healed. Baptism gives us the life of grace to strengthen us. But precisely why we need strength is that we are still left to struggle with the darkened mind, weakened will, and disordered appetites — in a word, concupiscence — that result from original sin.

The reason this matters is that concupiscence is not, in itself, sinful. It is merely the “tinder for sin.” So what?

So, read the rest (H/T to New Advent)

UPDATE I:
A Pagan Perspective

UPDATE II: Chelsea Zimmerman on killing your baby to spare it pain

UPDATE III: Tim Drake: How Many Genders Are There, Anyway Also Max is Chiming In