Chris Crain is now pondering the double standard where we condemn one public official (Pace) for speaking his personal views in a public arena, while denouncing other public officials (Hill and O) for not doing the same thing:
Perhaps we all fell too easily into the trap set by Pace's remarks, expecting politicians to defend our morality instead of our equal treatment under the law. If we truly believe in the separation of church and state, and that personal moral views have no place in politics, then we shouldn't demand that gay-friendly politicians pronounce us "moral" any more than we accept it when conservatives like Pace call us immoral.
The issue I have over the whole debate is this: it's premised on a silly question. Is homosexuality moral or immoral?
Ask yourself this: Is it moral to be white? How about black?
Just as we should reel from the staggering absurdity of that question, so too should we see the absurdity of the "is gay moral?" postulation.
I don't know about you, but I had just as much a choice in being white as I did in being gay. And just as I should be (to borrow a phrase) judged by the content of my character not by the color of my skin, so too should I be judged in regards to other aspects of my makeup, including my sexuality.
We should reject absurd questions like "is homosexuality moral" for it has no meaning. No matter which side of gay street you walk, their are champs and chumps. It's not about who we're attracted to, it's how we treat them that matters, the promises we keep (or break) and the respect and dignity we afford each other in our relationships that really counts. The plumbing is immaterial.
