Homosexuality

I have no problem with people being gay. I’m not saying that I am unbiased. I admit that I find two men (not two women) icky, just like having sex with mean people, whiny people, slovenly people, or animals is icky, but I understand that this is just personal preference – and that objectively – there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay; whereas, there is something objectively wrong with having sex with mean people, whiny people, slovenly people, or animals.

Homosexuality seems like it must be biological because it seems so widespread and almost impossible to change; however, it seems unlikely that it could be genetic because such a genetic mutation would die out as soon as it appeared. Therefore, I don’t know if homosexuality is a choice or biological programming. Both sides have claimed both when its suited their political goals, but homosexuality is objectively harmless, and thus it is irrelevant whether it is biological or a choice.

Gay Marriage

Neither side of the gay marriage issue has a compelling argument.

Tradition and religion are poor excuses to treat any people as second class citizens when they are causing no objective harm, and that is all that really needs to be said about the traditional marriage side.

On the other hand, proponents of gay marriage are getting a free pass on their many specious arguments. I observed its proponents (gay and straight) making the following claims over the years since the debate first appeared:

• Although homosexuality is not genetic, and gay marriage doesn't produce kids, gay marriage is natural because someone saw a gay dolphin.
• The Constitutional Amendment passed by a direct vote of the people of California – is not Constitutional.
• 10% of people are gay.
  
• There is no difference between gay marriage and hetero marriage.
• All gays want gay marriage.
• Most gay men want children.
• Gay marriage would produce children through advanced genetic engineering.
• Gay marriage is more natural than polygamy.
• Gay marriage has more historical precedent than polygamy.
• Gay marriage is better for children than polygamy.
• Marriage is between any two adults. Polygamy is not marriage.
• Gays cannot visit their partners in the hospital.
• Gay marriage is all about freedom and equality.

I have never seen a single article in the mainstream media contradicting, any of these claims, and I have seen most of these defended in the mainstream media.

Of course, there are many more specious arguments supported by the mainstream media over the years to support other parts of the gay community agenda. My favorite example is when Oprah warned us in the 1980's that unless we cured AIDS soon, then it would decimate the heterosexual population in just a few years. Of course, we now know that Oprah was astoundingly wrong, but AIDS research thus received the highest financial support of any disease - mission accomplished.

As an exercise to discover the true motives and character of gay marriage activists, I propose to each one I meet (in person or online) that I would support the right of gays to marry if they would support my right to marry more than one woman. Thus far, every gay marriage activist has not only denied my right to marry more than one woman, but they have expressed anger and intolerance. They make the arbitrary assertion that marriage is between two adults, and then they make really biased and unsubstantiated accusations about me and about polygamy, which reveals they are as hypocritical as anyone can be, and that they are even more intolerant than religious people.

Although I have a problem with the hypocrisy and intolerance of many (perhaps most) gay marriage activists, I don’t really have a problem with gay marriage itself.

Then again, gays can already have any kind of relationship they want. What is the benefit of officially redefining marriage to include gay marriage? Why do gays need the government? To force hospitals to give visitation rights to gay partners? I’ll bet that every hospital in San Francisco gives visitation rights to gay partners. I’ll bet that every city has multiple hospitals that give visitation rights to gay partners.

If gay activists want to endorse government regulation of relationships, then they should consider that they are a minority and thus at a disadvantage, that governments historically have tended to ban gay sex, and that marriage between one man and one woman further the goals of the government; whereas, other relationships such as polygamy and gay marriage do not further the goals of the government. For example, marriage between one man and one woman increases societal stability and produces more tax payers and soldiers; whereas, gay marriage does none of these things and polygamy produces as many tax payers and soldiers but may decrease societal stability.

However, gay activists are not only endorsing government regulation of personal relationships, they seek to grant new powers to government. The US government would gain more control over the American people by responding to the request from a gay activist minority to force everyone in America to treat gay relationships exactly the same as hetero relationships.

When Machiavelli wrote “The Prince” in 1513, he explained that when any government wants to gain more control over a people, it should first find a disgruntled minority among that people, claim to want to protect this minority, and then wait until this minority asks it to intervene on their behalf.

Many ordinary gays do not want to invite the government into their relationships. I think they are smart. Gay activists would take America in an unhealthy direction for political glory.

Rather than embracing government and asking for more government, there is another way to achieve equality that is far more freedom oriented.