Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Homosexuality and Public Policy

The so-called Gay Rights movement exhausts me. Don't get wrong, all individuals are entitled to equal protection under the law. I would get very unhappy if I heard any individual citizens were denied a job, the right to assemble or to vote because of who they were, their phenotype. Equal protection is very reasonable and should be (and is) the law.

But that isn't enough. Many homosexuals want special protections and exemptions, because of who they are. Sorry folks, but this is as un-American as it gets. Allow me to be more specific.

Gays in the US military was a Clinton bugaboo. Let's be honest here; the military excuses from service those who have flat feet, color-blindness and other minor handicaps, not to mention those with more major ones. You cannot be in the military if you do not have a high school diploma or now a GED. And now you cannot admit you are gay. The military leaders set the policies they believe will help them succeed. The President should heed their advice and we the people should trust them. This is not a fairness or rights issue; there is no right to serve in the military. HOWEVER, this is really an unwise policy, as it limits the candidate pool, and in the event of a draft, God forbid!, gives an excuse to those who would rather not serve. (There is no objective gay test I have ever heard of.) I believe a better policy is to allow homosexuals to serve only in co-ed units. If the leaders have decided that integrating the sexes is worth the risk of inappropriate (heterosexual) relations for these units, then the risk is no greater than that for homosexuals. At the end of the day, this issue rates a 3 of 10 on the how-important-is-this meter.

But the most important gay rights issue is gay unions. This idea is so silly and full of logical holes, it is a shame some people even talk about it, but here we are. The main legal reason against consideration is that marriage is not a right; the public policy reasons are related to the success of the "traditional" family unit, where the male-female couple accept the obligations of marriage for the benefit of the children born to them.

Marriage is not a right. Only individuals have rights; groups only have the rights of their constituent members. A married couple does not have special rights, simply because they are married. No, what the gay marriage promoters want is the same social benefits conferred to married couples. Insurance coverage, tax breaks, and the privilege to adopt are amongst these. These benefits though are not the reason for the acceptance of marriage as public policy; the reason is to promote the family unit. Let's face it, we have a huge problem with marriage abuse as it is with gold-digging and an obnoxious divorce rate for couples whose children are still young. These are really problems for our society. We should not extend the institution or create any facsimile thereof for homosexuals, who are biologically dysfunctional with regards to sexual attraction, to further abuse the social construct that is marriage.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the Home Broker, I hope you enjoy. The address is A hug.