In the year 2008, soon to be 2009, does anyone seriously say something like this, let alone believe it to be True, anymore: “The homosexual lifestyle is inherently dangerous and destructive.” Oh really? Have any facts to support such a wide sweeping generalization?
It looks like a columnist Jeffery T. Kuhner of the Washington Times believes it or at least he wrote it in his commentary for today. (Thanks to Pam from the Blend for the pointer. Or not, as this guy got my blood boiling so to speak.) He supported his statement above with this: “It is not just that most gays and lesbians are casually promiscuous, and that ritualized sodomy is profoundly unhealthy. But homosexuality is incapable of natural reproduction; its lifestyle is one that is barren and childless – and without children, there can be no future and ultimately, no hope.”
Oh, Mr Kuhner, why don’t you come join the rest of us in the new millennium where straights are just as “casually promiscuous” as gays and practice just as much “ritualized sodomy” as gays. It is also a place where “natural reproduction” is not the only means of having children. Even though I’m a lesbian, my reproductive system works just fine, and there is a place called a “sperm bank” that I can go visit if I want to have a kid. Or I can even go do it the old fashion way, get knocked up by some guy – sure I’m disgusted at the thought of having sex with a man, and it’d be the worse 5 minutes in recent memory, but I could do it. Actually, you might be familar with the concept of adoption, where the majority of children are from straight people who for whatever reason turn over the raising and custody of their children to someone else.
So no, being gay and lesbian isn’t a “lifestyle. . .that is barren and childless” like you claim. That tears down one support of your argument that “the homosexual lifestyle is inherently dangerous and destructive” but also about your anti-gay marriage stance: “The purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children within a stable, committed framework; it is the primary mechanism by which society reproduces itself and passes on one generation to the next.”
I think Mr Kuhner is going to run into a lot of married straight people who aren’t it for procreation – which according to Mr Kuhner is the old fashion way of a man and a woman having sex together, no outside help allowed – so all of the marriages of infertile couples? Null and void. All of the marriages of any woman over the age of child bearing? Null and void. All of the marriages of couples that just plain don’t want to have children? Null and void. All of the marriages were the couples rather adopt an child rather then make their own? Null and void. Mr Kuhner, I think you’d be better off trying to get each state and the federal government to add a statement to their marriage licenses that a couple must have a child within a certain time frame lest their marriage be null and void. And better yet, make it so they have to take a medical exam before getting married to ensure both husband and wife are physically capable of having childern.
As to the “stable, committed framework” – that isn’t necessarily guaranteed because the married couple is straight. I’d rattle off a list of news articles that show this to be true, but all one needs to do is just turn on the evening news to watch the sick deprived things straight couples do to their children. And those are the ones that make the news, not to mention the ones that are only reported to state child protection agencies.
There are so many false statements in that commentary, I’m only picking out the ones that just get my goat. Like this one: “The debate about same-sex marriage has nothing to do with “gay rights.” Homosexuals are free to do anything they like in the privacy of their bedrooms.”
And that right to privacy was only given to gays by the US Supreme Court ruling “Lawrence v. T exas” in 2003! Dang activist judges telling our state legistatures what they can and can not tell us to do in the privacy of our own homes. But that is only one right out of a plethora of rights that are granted to a couple by marriage – perhaps next time Mr Kuhner you could do a simple search of Wikipedia that comes up with a handy dandy list of rights granted by marriages. I know Wikipedia isn’t the end all and be all for journalistic research, but it is a good starting point.
Read Mr Kuhner’s full commentary if you dare – he comes off sounding like he wants to revert the United States to a taliban like theocracy ruled by the judeo-christian part of society. I for one am thankful that the 1st Amendment protects me from him forcing his christian dogma down my throat.