Why No Homosexual Civil unions or Marriages?

I’ll point this out right up front. My own brother died of aids. I loved my brother, but the natural consequences of his choices where unavoidable. I am motivated to concern myself on this matter not out of hate, but out of love for those so afflicted.

Unfortunately, in teaching us tolerance of differences, the schools failed to acknowledge there are any things right and wrong. Some things are good and some things are bad for mankind. Homosexuality is bad for the individuals, bad for any children so unfortunate as to be raised in such a household, and ultimately bad for any society where this plague gains a foothold. I’ll explain why it’s so bad in a moment.

Because the schools reject any reference to absolute right and wrong- (that implies God) it is easy to loose our ability to cast legitimate judgments. It was God who established and defined our relationships. Those rules were not meant to bind us, but give man and their progeny their best shot at true happiness. But for those who have not discovered God as the source of wisdom, the history of nature teaches the same hard lessons.

Homosexuality is like alcoholism. It doesn’t discriminate nor does it matter how the alcoholism was acquired, its destructive influences are natural and un-avoidable.

· Homosexuals are 4 times as likely to commit suicide and that’s true even in homosexual-promoting Europe!

· Homosexuals are much more promiscuous as a group than heterosexuals -married or not. The so-called committed relationships are a rarity paraded for TV.

· Homosexuals spread disease and death by practicing a more risky form of sex with more partners each having a higher probability of carrying life-threatening diseases.

· Homosexuals are responsible for the introduction and continued spread of AIDS to the heterosexual population. Transsexual individuals, in turn, spread the disease to their unwitting partners.

· Children raised in Homosexual homes (even foster and adopted) are much more likely to become homosexuals themselves. This disproves the myth of inborn Homosexuality.

· Children raised in a society that blesses and sanctions Homosexual unions of any kind tend to be more likely to tolerate, then try out and embrace the homosexual lifestyle.

· Children thus raised in Homosexual homes are much more likely to become promiscuous disease getting and disease spreading individuals themselves.

· The Homosexual lifestyle cannot long support a society and will loose in the end to cultures that abhor and suppress it. In Israel for example, the most effective weapon is claimed to simply be the Muslim womb.

Even if some few Homosexuals claim some innate propensity toward that lifestyle, for the sake of the individual and society it should be discouraged. 10% of the population is claimed to have a genetic propensity for alcoholism. Should we encourage and accept drinking and drunkenness for these individuals? Some men desire to have intimate relations with more than one woman – should society legalize and thus sanction forms of polygamy and accept adultery as natural and therefore acceptable?

If it is to be argued that society has neither interest nor right to promote through its laws human behavior and relationships, then how can any conceivable or inconceivable relationship be disallowed? Why not 2 men and their 3 wives? After all they seem loving and committed! (BTW this is not ridiculous slippery slope logic; similar lawsuits are already before the courts.

If folks want to commune together, they can. If they want to set up partnerships, joint accounts and mutual living wills and powers of attorney, they can.  The law does not interfere. Homosexuals can setup any legal provision they want but society does not have to have an interest in promoting it. Equal protection under the law does not also mean equal promotion. Similarly, the constitutional provision of freedom of association does not require a universal and arbitrary approval and promotion of destructive lifestyles.

This last point is the primary argument recently made by the dissenting opinion on the Supreme Court – that society did have a compelling interest in promoting certain kinds of behavior. All that is being said here is that lifestyles deemed destructive to society’s short and long-term welfare should not be facilitated by government sanction. Essentially, we may tolerate, but we should not be greasing the skids for such relationships; Nor should we be compelled to treat anyone’s life-choices as acceptable alternatives worthy of promotion from grade school to divorce courts.

Steve Marquis