Can We Reasonably Accept the Homosexual Lifestyle?

Please note: this article may contain material some find offensive.

The question before us is whether homosexuals should be allowed to have gay "unions" or to raise children. Here is my response.

The homosexual lifestyle is medically deadly (the lesbian lifestyle is less so, but it is also a cause of some medical conditions, and is often emotionally abusive). We are being asked to approve of this lifestyle as a personal choice. In effect, we are being asked for our approval in general. The homosexual lifestyle per se should not be made illegal because it cannot be enforced without violating the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. But the homosexual lifestyle needs to be heavily discouraged. There are a number of reasons for this.

First of all, living a homosexual lifestyle shortens a man's life expectancy by 30 years. This is because of diseases transmitted among homosexuals. The reality is that you don't do something to someone you claim to love that will shorten his life expectancy by a significant amount. Love is about self-sacrifice, and in the case of the homosexual relationship, the people are refusing to make the necessary sacrifice to protect their partners from any diseases they might be carrying (if they have ever had sex with someone else, they have also had sex with all the people that person has had sex with, as far as transmitting diseases is concerned, and they won't know they have contracted a disease until they have symptoms, but they can still pass it on). If you truly love a person, you don't ask them to take the risk of getting a deadly disease from you. So in that sense, the love between homosexual partners is not the same kind of love as that between husband and wife. The fact is, the act of sodomy causes medical damage no matter what the circumstances. You don't cause medical damage to someone you claim to love, and then claim you love them. Even if neither partner is carrying an STD, the act of sodomy can still result in the deadly E. coli bacterium entering the bloodstream of the receiver. Our bodies weren't designed to permit two people of the same gender to enjoy sexual activity.

In fact, if you look at the dynamics of the homosexual relationship, it can honestly be said that the motivation of each partner is lust, not love. This is because they are seeking personal pleasure and placing this in a more important position than self-sacrificing love. You don't deliberately expose someone to a deadly disease and then claim you love them! This makes no sense.

Secondly, it is not an act of love to raise a child in a family where a deadly lifestyle is taught as normal. Even though homosexual parents might have natural affection for their children, it is not normal for them to want to teach their children that their deadly lifestyle is normal, and it is not loving. It is also not loving because it causes gender confusion in their children. Children raised by homosexuals have spoken out about this. A man who insists on driving drunk may be a loving father, but we don't claim that he is a normal father who can raise healthy children. We don't claim that the practice of driving drunk is just another lifestyle choice. If we are in the business of placing children for adoption, we wouldn't place a child in a home where the father is known to drive drunk habitually. By the same token, we wouldn't place a child in a homosexual home because the homosexual lifestyle is deadly, and children have a right to be taught that it is deadly, so that they may avoid it. Furthermore, children have a right to be raised by parents of both genders because every child needs to learn to interact with a person of each gender in a very intimate circumstance. In this question of homosexual parents, the rights of the children are being overlooked, and since children are legally incompetent, we have a duty to protect their rights for them. This means protecting their right to be raised in the home of people of different genders committed to each other through marriage. Furthermore, it is known that some homosexuals seek to adopt because they want access to virgins, to protect themselves from deadly diseases. We have no way of making sure that a given potential adoptive couple doesn't fall into that category. When you are deciding whether to permit someone to adopt, you are essentially playing God, without His wisdom. No person who is conscientious can afford to take that chance. Adoption is a government act, done through government courts, to create a legal relationship where there is no existing relationship of any kind. It is done without the consent of the child, who usually would lack the wisdom to oppose it anyway.

You cannot define marriage as anything other than the union of people of opposite genders, because marriage is a covenant relationship designed by God for the procreation and protection of children, and you can't redefine what it is because God already defined it, and we don't have a right to change it.

It is also not true that the homosexual lifestyle is "their business," simply because it results in the spread of deadly disease in the general population. This is because they don't just infect each other; they infect other people (sometimes children, sometimes a person of the opposite gender) and as a result of their activities, babies are being born with HIV. Also, many homosexuals deliberately donate blood in order to infect the blood supply. They even recommend lying about whether they have been with a man sexually. This DOES affect other people, so other people have a say. And I have heard that some homosexuals deliberately spit in the food they are preparing for restaurant patrons.

Natural affection for children is not the only requirement for being a good parent. Teaching a child to live in an upright way is critical. If a parent has shown that he is unwilling to live an upright lifestyle himself, how will he teach his children to live an upright lifestyle? It is the height of cruelty to indoctrinate a child into a deadly lifestyle, and I don't care how much affection that parent has for his child, he is NOT a good parent. Affection isn't enough, and if you aren't willing to undertake the difficult tasks of parenting, you cannot be a good parent, no matter how affectionate you are. Teaching children ethics and how to live an upright life requires sacrifice, and it is a difficult thing to do, but it is essential, and every child has a right to parents who will not corrupt him morally. In fact, we used to recognize that parents who corrupt their children are to be held accountable. We need to return to that practice.

We are all interdependent. No person can live a truly private lifestyle; everything we do affects the other people in our immediate society. So claiming that these things are private is unrealistic. If homosexuals have made it known to the community that they are homosexuals, they are also teaching children that the homosexual lifestyle is normal and healthy. The practice of homosexuality is characterized by disgusting medically unsafe practices, and if people aren't ashamed that they indulge in these things, they're not fittin' to live in polite company. Corrupting our society by corrupting the definition of marriage is also unacceptable. I do not in any way intend to demean people who have homosexual tendencies; we are all sinners, and we all are tempted to sin. But this is a very different thing from practicing the lifestyle and flaunting that in public.

Many gay activists are seeking to force other people to accept them on equal terms with everyone else, or in fact, to give them privileges not given to anyone else. They seek to force us to accept them for employment (even when the employment involves handling food for the general public), or as tenants in a rental property. Both of these demands would be the basis for unconstitutional laws because we are guaranteed the right to freedom of association. These demands would thwart that right. A person has a right to refuse to associate with homosexuals. It is not the same thing as discrimination against people of color or of the female gender, because these are biological characteristics over which a person has no control. Homosexual tendencies could be said to be characteristics over which a person has no control also (though you must overlook the fact that homosexual tendencies are caused by nonbiological causes, such as abuse), but homosexual behavior is a lifestyle choice. Gay activists also seek to enact various laws that would permit them to insure their partners for health insurance and similar provisions. We also have every right to oppose this simply because they have chosen to place themselves in a high risk group, and those of us who are prudent are not ethically required to share the cost of their deadly lifestyle. In fact, it is unethical for them even to ask. Homosexuals are also demanding laws that would give them special privileges in the area of marriage. They have the SAME right to marry a person of opposite gender as the rest of us. The rest of us don't have the right to marry an animal, a child, a first cousin or sibling, or a person of the same gender. So this is NOT a demand for equality. It's a demand for privilege. In any case, the vast majority of homosexuals aren't interested in being married anyway. Only a few thousand have ever done it, and many of these have subsequently divorced. In my opinion, the purpose of insisting on "gay marriage" is to destroy the institution of marriage, and nothing else. We don't have to put up with major corruptions of society just because a small minority (or even a majority) want it that way.

We have every right and duty to judge people's lifestyle choices. We aren't obliged to approve of gang activiity or drug dealing, or beating your kids, or driving drunk, or a whole plethora of other lifestyle choices. We aren't obliged to become part of a risk group for insurance purposes that include people who participate in extreme sports. We aren't obliged to approve of the homosexual lifestyle, either. One's lifestyle is a choice.

Please note that I am NOT advocating that we forbid homosexuals from forming contractual relationships with each other, or willing their estate to each other. However, if one of them has a spouse or former spouse where the homosexual lifestyle caused the breakup of the marriage, then that person has the right to overrule the will in a court of law. The law must continue to distinguish between the contractual relationships of homosexuals and the covenantal relationships of married people of opposite genders, and to provide for inheritance in the case of an intestate person. We cannot afford to allow the law to give the estate of an intestate homosexual to his partner. Please note further that I don't advocate a different standard for people who act promiscuously with people of the opposite gender, or who have sexual contact outside of marriage. I think we should apply the same condemnations to their behavior. It is something we need to remedy, rather than going further in the direction of madness. It would certainly have been helpful if we had taken the initial demand for freedom to fornicate to its logical extreme a long time ago, so that we could have anticipated what was going to be the end result. Senator Santorum really deserves our appreciation for speaking plainly about the ultimate outcome of the current trend.

History has shown that once a society becomes decadent, and accepts the homosexual lifestyle as normal, it quickly falls apart. If we want to keep our legacy of freedom, we must heed the lessons of history. The future of our Republic depends on it.

The bottom line is that even though we need to recognize and accept homosexuals as fellow human beings, we are under no obligation whatsoever to recognize and acquiesce to their perversions, and in fact, we have a duty to oppose their behavior, simply for the good of the rest of the people in society, and for their own good as well. So while we have no right to act more righteous than they, lest we be ignoring the beam in our own eye, going after the mote in theirs, we do have a duty to oppose their deadly behavior, and by golly, we had better do so!