I’ve pondered over this dilemma before. It goes something like this:
As a Christian, I firmly believe that homosexuality is not according to God’s will (for reasoning why, see this post). I also firmly believe that permitting it would be akin to promoting it, in that people will see it as permissibe and be influenced by those who practise it.
Yet if I were in charge of legislation, by outlawing homosexuality, wouldn’t I be imposing my beliefs on others who do not share my worldview? Compare if I were to make it compulsory to attend church or wear a cross. Wouldn’t that be forcing people to ‘convert’ against their will?
But then I thought deeper, and realized: If I believe firmly about a position, such as homosexuality, yet I do not press forward by translating my beliefs into action… What does that say about the strength of my convictions?
Compare if it were on matters of the economy. If I claim to be a proponent of free trade, but I don’t dare promote laws encouraging free trade because it would ‘infringe on the differing viewpoints of the socialists and protectionists’ – doesn’t this show me up as not truly believing that free trade is the best economic model for the nation?
If I really want what’s best for the nation and I really believe that free trade is what’s best for the nation, I ought to be promoting it as a strong leader. I ought to believe that my way is best, even if others do not agree with my views. I ought to strive to legislate against socialized and centralized economic models, believing them to be disastrous for the economy. To do anything less would be gross irresponsibility and might lead to the collapse of the nation.
Similarly, if I believe that homosexuality is detrimental to the moral fabric of the nation, shouldn’t I then be pushing against it no matter what others may think?