Homosexual Activists Showing Their True Colors . . . Again
I have said before that the leadership behind the homosexual rights movement is not interested in getting marriage rights for homosexuals so they can be like the rest of us, but rather that the goal of this part of the movement is to destroy marriage to make the rest of us more like them. Recent events in Washington prove openly what most in the homosexual rights movement only admit privately. That they really do want to see marriage ended.
Assaulting the family has been a hallmark of the homosexual rights movement for decades now. It’s part of the strategy to normalize homosexuality. Anything that makes the rest of us more like them helps their cause just as much as anything that makes them appear to be like the rest of us.
Here is the most recent assault on the family.
Homosexual activists have proposed legislation that places an undue burden on heterosexual couples who wish to marry. Here is a synopsis of the legislation:
Heterosexual couples may not marry unless they can prove their fertility. They must submit to fertility testing to establish their ability to have children. Upon marriage they must have a child within three years or the marriage will be annulled.
UPDATE: You can view the propsed legislation at the website of the actual authors of the bill at http://www.wa-doma.org/ This is a homosexual/homosexual sympathetic activist group in Washington.
This is motivated purely out of spite by the homosexual activist group that has proposed. They are bitter that the honest argument that marriage is about families, primarily the bearing and raising of children resonates with not only the 98% of America that is heterosexual, but also many courts. This legislation is designed to denigrate marriage and eliminate it entirely over time.
Allow me to demonstrate the logical and moral idiocy of this proposed legislation.
1: It unfairly discriminates against women. Since men remain fertile much later in life than women do, it places an unfair burden on women who wish to marry, or remarry late in life. A man can find a younger woman of childbearing age and get married, but a woman cannot do the same thing.
2: It unfairly discriminates against single parents. Single parents may wish to marry, but may not have desire or the means to support additional children in three years. While marriage in this case is proven to be beneficial to both the single parent and all children, this legislation would ban such a family from forming. A single parent marrying provides the two parent household that is proven to be the best possible situation for the healthy development of children, but this legislation would prevent this family from forming.
3: Infertility is not what it once was. My wife and I are an infertile couple, but we have a child that is biologically our own. Set aside the many miraculous births of children to supposedly infertile couples and take a look at modern medicine. In-vitro fertilization is a blessing that has allowed many infertile couples to have their own children. But it is also expensive and does not always work. We went through three rounds of in-vitro before it finally succeeded. The first round was within two years of marriage. The second round was just before out fifth anniversary. The final round that finally succeeded was a few months later. We had our son just less than a month after our sixth anniversary. Under this law we would have been banned from marrying each other, and even we did slip through the system we would have been forced to divorce after three years because we did not have the money at the time to perform rapidly repeated rounds of in-vitro fertilization. There is no such recourse for homosexuals.
4: Point 3 proves how this proposed legislation also discriminates against the poor.
5: It ignores the historical morality of marriage. The three religions that comprise some 70% of the planet all teach their followers that sex is reserved for marriage alone. This places a moral burden on the vast majority of heterosexuals that most homosexuals do not share for two reasons. The first is that homosexuality itself is a violation of all three of these major religions, so any homosexual behavior from a follower of these religions is already morally wrong. The second is that most homosexuals feel no need whatsoever to restrain their sexual behavior prior to marriage while a full quarter of Americans, oversexed as we are, actually only have one sexual partner for their entire lives. The average American heterosexual has a total of 4 sexual partners in a lifetime, including those who have multiple marriages. The average homosexual has 50 (Correction: The original number of 90 was a typo. The 9 in adjacent to the 5 on the number pad. I missed the original typo.) sexual partners in a lifetime. This figure is skewed because male homosexuals have exponentially more sexual partners than female homosexuals. However, the average lesbian still has notably more sexual partners than the average heterosexual.
6: It ignores that the debate over homosexual marriage is, at its core, both social and moral. It has nothing at all to do with the legal system for most heterosexuals, but everything to do with the legal system for homosexuals because it is the only place where they have the ability to overcome popular opinion and moral consensus.
7: It ignores the historically proven fact that heterosexual marriage stabilizes society with or without children. By seeking to end marriage this legislation is guaranteed to have a destabilizing on America. There is no correlation between homosexual marriage and societal stabilization. In fact, current indicators show that homosexual marriage, including homosexual “civil unions” may actually have a destabilizing effect on society.
8: When the sponsors of a bill say things like “Let’s see how they like getting a taste of their own medicine.” It proves beyond all reasonable doubt that this legislation is nothing more than a revenge bill designed to hurt all heterosexuals. It is an intimidation tactic, and it will not work. Homosexuals may be able to intimidate Hollywood and Democrat politicians, but it cannot intimidate the entire heterosexual community.