Francis W. Porretto has an essay up about the damage caused by homosexuality, and while he describes some significant correlations I think I must disagree with him as to the cause-effect relationship he propounds.
Marriage is the fundamental building block of any civilization. Society is not made up principally of individuals, but of families. The evidence for this proposition is all around us, yet its very ubiquity has somehow caused it to be ignored. ...The error, I think, is in attributing the severance of children from marriage to the ascension of homosexuality, when both phenomena may in fact be effects of some earlier common cause. He points out rightly that marriage and families are important in environments where economic partnerships are necessary for raising children, but as the world gets richer (and particularly, in much of the West, less competitive due to socialism) such partnerships become increasingly less useful. As wealth becomes decoupled from work and everyone is virtually guaranteed a survivable lifestyle (and virtually prohibited from rising above that level), it ceases to matter whether or not you raise kids in truly "optimal" environments -- they won't do much worse if you don't, or much better if you do. (In measurable, monetary, terms; as for psychological damage, that can of course be fixed by therapy -- and such damage is in the eye of the beholder.)The marriage contract is in no way relevant to homosexual relationships, which are formed by presumedly economic equals, involve no possibility of conception, and therefore appear to present no areas for contract enforcement. None of the natural motivators for the marital contract apply to same-sex couples. Despite that, homosexuals are agitating for access to the institution of marriage as if everything about their political movement depended on it. (Perhaps that's really the case; we'll get there shortly.)
Stanley Kurtz and others have gathered evidence to the effect that the legitimization of same-sex marriage does great harm to the institution among heterosexuals. In particular, it correlates strongly with a large increase in illegitimacies. Kurtz's thesis is that same-sex marriage is the final severance between marriage and reproduction; it gives rise to the conviction that child-bearing and child-rearing are entirely irrelevant to marriage. As a result, births out of wedlock, with all the instabilities that pertain thereto, have surged in those countries that have extended marital recognition to same-sex couples. The domestic stability and overall well-being of children has been substantially degraded as a result.
Don't get me wrong, the problem isn't wealth or technology! The problem is that we've Nerfed society to the extent that it doesn't matter what you do or how you live -- you and your family will be protected from all the worst natural consequences of your decisions. Therefore there's little incentive to make wise decisions with long-term value, and every incentive to make whatever decision will make you immediately happy. Anything that stands in the way of immediate gratification is seen as a violation of liberty, and in a way it is, but ultimately such violations go hand-in-hand with the socially provided safety net, if the net is to have any chance of long-term sustainability (which it probably doesn't). If you expect society to share the costs of your poor decisions then you have no choice but to sacrifice your liberty in exchange. Such a realization, however, would require a long-term perspective, which is anathema to the left.
The homosexual community is as diverse as the heterosexual community. Some of us drift left.. some of us drift right. Some of us want to raise children.. some of us do not. Some of us are wealthy.. some of us are not. Some of us are Christian, Jewish, or Islamic.. and some of us are none of the above.
This diversity is what makes Francis W. Porretto's premises so ridiculous. Homosexuality, often referred to as an "aberration".. an exception to the rule.. is not the cause of such great social ill that he's making it out to be. Maybe.. just maybe.. the majority is responsible for a problem or problems. Maybe something that more people do has more of an impact than what a few people do.
I'm often irritated by this idea... that the minority is responsible whenever there is a problem... but that they're concerns aren't important when they want something.
Personal responsibility is always something I've valued highly. I demand it of myself and, as politely as possible, demand it of the people around me. I don't do something unless I'm sure I can handle the consequences.
People shouldn't have children if they can't or won't support them. This would lessen the amount of children in orphanages, lessen the number of abortions, etc.
Maybe the problem isn't that people have lost touch with God or that they've lost an appreciation for family... maybe people aren't as responsible as they once were. That's the real problem... not homosexuality.