Artificial definitions of marriage perilous

I am confused by the flow of Richard Cohen's recent column, "The normal heart - cure for homophobia" (May 21). My interpretation of what he wrote is that universal acceptance, promotion and accommodation of homosexual relations is the only way to eliminate disordered "fear" of homosexuals.

I have never slammed a homosexual with a sack of brass doorknobs (as described in his column), nor even considered such an abhorrent act, I believe men can love men and women can love women as members of the human community created by God in his likeness. I believe extending that love to acts of sexual intimacy between members of the same sex is disordered and immoral. I believe any act of sexual gratification or intimacy outside of a married relationship between a man and a woman is immoral.

Human frailty makes living a perfectly chaste life extremely difficult. However, doing so is a prerequisite for achieving our highest level of self-actualization.

I believe we, not the government, are called to care for the sick and disabled, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, and defend the dignity of all irrespective of their sexual orientation.

I believe a man can live with and support another man and a woman can do the same with another woman. However, that commitment and desire to do so does not rise to the definition of marriage.

I believe all human beings are entitled to the rights conferred on them by their creator. Marriage is not one of those basic human rights. It is a gifted vocation. I believe governments that create artificial definitions of traditional human relationships do so at peril to the society to which they have been entrusted to promote the common good. So what was Mr. Cohen trying to say to his readers?

Peter Gennuso

Schaumburg