• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Yet again, the true colors of the homosexual movement have been revealed. Both World Vision and Mozilla, one Christian, the other secular, have been the latest battlegrounds. World Vision, to its credit, reversed course. But the truly fascist tendencies of the homosexual movement came to the fore with Mozilla: A CEO who gave $1,000 as a private citizen years ago to a cause he believed in (Prop 8 in California, which maintained marriage between a man and a woman) was dragged out and expelled from the company he co-founded. For what? Thought crime perhaps? Bigotry? So, to all the leftists who are glad the Mozilla CEO was forced to resign because he held the same position on marriage as President Obama did at the time: Would it be cool if we had President Obama resign, too?

Times like these make it necessary to re-examine the truly irrational foundations upon which the homosexual movement rests. That it has a right to make its case in society is undisputed. But with all due respect to my fellow citizens, the logic of the homosexual movement, its rational justification, is simply not there.

The contention that not allowing gay “marriage” amounts to treating homosexuals like second-class citizens is an entirely fallacious notion. All individuals are equal (i.e. treated the same) before the law, but not all ASSOCIATIONS (groups of individuals) are treated the same. There are for-profit and nonprofit corporations, churches and PACs, NGOs and foundations, etc. They are all groups of individuals who have freely associated with one another for particular purposes, and they are all treated differently by the government.

A man and a woman are one association, a man/man or woman/woman is another. They are fundamentally different primarily because of the unique ability of a man and a woman to create new life, and thus continue the human race. A homosexual couple can never do that. That is not hateful, it is the truth. This is why a marriage license is granted to a man and a woman, not heterosexual A and heterosexual B. Sexual orientation, contrary to how the homosexual movement paints the issue, has nothing to do with it. It is entirely contingent upon that which is made uniquely possible by the union of a man and a woman, and then connecting that father and mother to the result of their union, namely children. Nobody’s personal sexual desires are of any concern to the government whatsoever. All men, including homosexual men, have the exact same right to marry a woman, and vice versa. Again, NO ONE is being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation.

Some will ask about those men and women who choose not to have children, or who can’t. But if a man and a woman choose not to procreate, or cannot, that doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority do. Nor does it change the fact that whether they do or don’t, only a man and a woman can procreate, and even if they choose not to, couples have been known to be surprised. A nonprofit organization is unique in that it is the only association where funds can be solicited from donors who then have specific tax benefits for those donations. But a nonprofit can either find donors or it cannot, and yet the government treats the successful and non-successful the same, because that treatment is based on the nature of the association itself, not its results. This is why procreation matters not because the government requires all men and women who are married to have children (an absurd notion), but because only men and women can have children, and it is this unique power, the very basis of our civilization, government has an interest in. You cannot structure public policy on exceptions, and, pardon the pun, marriage is no exception.

A homosexual couple asking to be treated like a married man and woman is like a for-profit corporation asking to be treated like a nonprofit corporation. They are both associations, but they are different associations that are therefore treated differently by the government, and rightly so. If this is “discrimination,” then we should be up in arms about corporations and foundations and NGOs, etc. not being treated equally. If this is “discrimination,” then we should immediately start a movement for our favorite companies to be treated like nonprofits so that we can give to them and get a tax deduction. Why should they be taxed, and nonprofits aren’t? While we’re at it, we should start a movement to have nonprofits treated like corporations in the realm of free speech so that they are no longer hindered in what they can say. Wouldn’t this truly be “equality”? And perhaps most significantly of all: to say these things doesn’t even require anyone to make a value judgment, bring religion into it, etc. None of that is necessary. These are the cold hard realities of facts, and as John Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things.”

So when the homosexual movement claims “equality” as its mantle, it does so in a completely illogical and untenable way. All homosexual individuals are treated the exact same way under the law as heterosexual individuals. So what this movement wants is not an equality of individuals (this already exists), but an equality of associations. But if ALL associations were equal, then legally, rightfully, logically, the government would also no longer have a right to discriminate between corporations, nonprofits, PACs, churches, or any other human association imaginable. They would all have to be “equal” after all, wouldn’t they?

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.