My understanding is thus: That conservatism is distinguished from liberalism by its understanding of a moral significance of the aspects of society. Proceeding from this, we realize that every action either implicitly or explicitly affirms the moral order of a community and thus affects an individual's understanding of that order. This also has implications for the relationships between individuals, which I argue is the foundation of a community and thus society at large. Since to divorce moral significance from practical instantiations is to render that significance entirely abstract and thus impractical, it is import that we utilize naturally presented relationships as a foundation for asserting that moral significance. Keep in mind that when I use the term natural, I mean natural as in the sense of what a being is teleologically ordered towards; in other words, a human being is teleologically ordered towards a different nature than that of a rock or a cat. With human biological relationships there is a naturally suggested moral order for which the sexes can potentially aspire towards, and through this naturally suggested ordering we are able to, through the socially recognized understanding of the structure of the family, introduce children to the concept of this moral order and thus develop them to be able to participate within the moral sphere of the community. Through the collective affirmation of this moral order a society receives character, and I feel this is exemplified when you juxtapose the bland consumer-culture of today to the diversity of religiously oriented cultures of the past. The conclusion of this line of thinking, I believe, is that to frustrate or willfully reject the moral significance of any action is to threaten the constitution of a community.
When one engages in copulation, the moral significance of the act is obvious. To have sex with a woman without the use of contraceptives, within the bonds of indissoluble marriage, in a manner that most assures procreation, contains the moral signification that you choose that woman to be the wife of your child; to do otherwise is to imply the opposite. This is not only a practical concern of morality, it is a romantic concern, a concern of the ability of individuals to be able to understand the poetry or beauty of an act. Love is a product when it is realized, whether subconsciously or consciously, that it can be dissolved with great ease at the whim of either partner. Love is a romantic notion and the expression of the triumph of will when it is an act of complete self-donation. As a consequence, my objections to homosexuality are almost identical to my objections to premarital sex.
This doesn't mean that I think the person who engages in homosexual acts is condemnable in and of themselves, especially given our extenuating circumstances (those circumstances being the lack of moral significance in modern society). A person who engages in such acts, or in premarital sex, but feels they have betrayed a sense of holiness, understand the poetry of significance to a far greater degree than one who simply seeks to gratify themselves. I would even claim that they understand a higher plane of existence, considering that one who does not use this moral significance as a basis for their actions is blind to an entire layer of factors that affect the lives of human beings. Conservationist talks about this a lot when he mentions the pattern and structure of reality, and I've always thought that he was somewhat of a closet Platonist. I can see how he strongly associates Hinduism with this Platonic notion as well, as dharma is kind of a personal understanding of Platonic structuralism. I was really influenced by the same concept in my youth, I think my copy of the Bhagavad Gita is almost worn to tatters by now.