My comment (at #17) on the blog post:
(Before I begin, I’d like to thank whoever removed my previous comments that were uncivil in content/tone, and apologise for them. I’ll strive to avoid the same mistakes. Thanks again!)
“From early on in our friendship, I routinely got large hugs from these women
and realized there wasn’t a sexual undercurrent. I know they are not attracted to me, and I know I’m not attracted to them, and so all the base emotions that too often cloud my relationships with other females were simply gone. Because of these women I began to experience—perhaps for the first time—what a “sister in Christ” is, what that relationship feels like, and what my disposition toward other females ought to entail.”
I think virtually all Christians have struggled to figure out whether homosexuality is objectively wrong (apart from because the bible says so). Interestingly, the principle which undergirds my personal conclusions is reflected in the above quote from the author.
For me, as a male person, it is a wonderful thing to be able to interact with my male friends without any sexual undercurrent. I think the same is likewise true for females. I shall call this the sanctity principle of same-sex platonic friendships. Thus, we can see how the sanctity of such friendships could be threatened if homosexuality is condoned.
Incidentally, the same principle extends to marriage. Being faithfully married to a wife allows a man to have platonic friendships with other women, with the tacit understanding that such friendship is not for sex. If infidelity is condoned, the sanctity of such friendships would likewise be compromised.
(I speak as someone who lives in a country where homosexual acts are criminalised by statutory law. I myself have argued that Christians in this country should not vehemently defend this law, because God’s law should work from within the heart, and is not meant to be coercively imposed by external forces.)