By James J. Devine
Divorce and adultery are severe threats to the institution of marriage, as well as to the ‘nuclear family’ we once believed was ‘normal’ in America.
A group based in New Jersey called the National Organization for Marriage is not paying any attention to those problems however, because in politics as in marketing, sex sells.
I find nothing in anyone’s agenda about restricting or prohibiting homosexual conduct and that raises a number of questions.
If people may engage in homosexual sex, live together and otherwise practice homosexual conduct, then why would it be appropriate for any citizen, group, business or government agency to deny gay people any opportunity or benefit that is available to others?
Would it be appropriate for a fast food cashier to deny service to a homosexual customer? How does anyone know if other people have sex, let alone determine what kind of acts take place in private?
The National Organization for Marriage says it has a mission to protect marriage and organize opposition to same-sex marriage initiatives in state legislatures.
Apparently, their key to success is advocating homosexual promiscuity because if gay couples form permanent exclusive partnerships based on love, trust and respect then heterosexual people would no longer be able to enjoy similar unions.
Judging from the divorce rate, large numbers of heterosexuals began equating monogamy with monotony a long time ago. Personally, I wish I had been protected from my first marriage but I remain attracted to females (with the exception of one in particular).
It is possible that their concern is if we allow gay couples to marry then their offspring would be less likely to be straight than if one parent were male and the other female.
Rationalizing that fear would require acknowledging that homosexuality really is genetic while ignoring some pretty significant fundamentals of biology.
I know religion is described as a powerful motive, but to me it seems that if sins may be forgiven, God is going to judge us all and Jesus commanded us to love one another, so no mortal has a right to judge whose behavior is sinful.
The more I think about it, the less I understand the desire of some people to instill in law a right for themselves to discriminate or persecute people who do what the some find distasteful.
The test of patriotism in a nation “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” is allowing others the right to make their own choices without interference of retribution.
