Legitimizing the Homosexual Lifestyle

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court overturned the Texas state law against homosexual sodomy in the landmark case Lawrence v. Texas. In the years to come we will look back on this ruling as a major sea change in our culture. This is perhaps the largest single victory ever achieved by the homosexual community.

For many years, homosexual activists have fought to overturn state laws condemning homosexual activity. In 1986, 25 states had laws similar to the one in Texas. When the Supreme Court took up this case earlier this year the number had been cut to 13. The decision by the court effectively swept away those 13.

The Homosexual Agenda
Even more frightening than the victories homosexuals have won is the reason they took up the battle in the first place. Was it because they were afraid of being arrested for their activity? The court itself recognized that prosecutions for homosexual activity are extremely rare and when they do happen it is usually because the activity took place in public.

The motivation for overturning the laws against homosexuality is the removal of any public denouncement of the “gay” lifestyle. Homosexual activists have worked long and hard to achieve moral equality between their lifestyle and that of heterosexuals.

Having struck down the remaining state laws condemning their behavior they will now fight even harder to achieve their “holy grail” — full endorsement of their lifestyle with government-sanctioned homosexual marriage.

It is likely that before the end of the year either a Massachusetts or New Jersey court will rule in favor of a same-sex marriage case. When they do, it will open the floodgates, and homosexual couples will rush to those states to have their relationships officially recognized. Upon their return home they will use the courts to force their home states to recognize their new “marriages.” Soon, this issue will be pushed to the Supreme Court as well.

Same Sex Marriages
In writing the majority decision in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Kennedy made a point of stopping short of endorsing same-sex marriage. In response to Kennedy’s statement that the ruling “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition” to homosexual marriage, Justice Scalia wrote, “Do not believe it.”

Prior to his attempt to allay fears that the court was creating same-sex marriage, Justice Kennedy referred to constitutional protections afforded to “personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.” He then went on to say that anyone “in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

All through Justice Kennedy’s decision and Justice O’Conner’s concurring opinion are repeated admonitions about discriminating against homosexual individuals. Over and over they both make it clear that any right or opportunity permitted to heterosexuals should be given equally to homosexuals and any attempt by the state to do otherwise would be viewed by the court as an unconstitutional act.

The full meaning and impact of this decision has yet to fully register in the minds of most Americans. In fact, even if the court were to force same-sex marriage on the American people today, most would not fully understand the gravity of the situation.

No Moral Basis for Law
So what are the effects of this decision? Space will not allow me to fully explore them. Let’s start by introducing the moral implications. The decision, as Justice Scalia stated it, “effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation.” If the majority of the American people cannot agree to make a law based on a moral belief, then what will be the basis for law?

If we cannot make a law against homosexual sodomy, how can we, as Scalia points out, criminalize “fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity”? Many in the homosexual community believe that any sexual relationship or sexual act should be permitted, with anyone … and at any age.

If, as the court has decided, a majority moral belief is not a legitimate basis for a law, how can we say it is improper for a young boy’s scoutmaster to introduce him to sexual activity? How can we limit marriage to one man and one woman? Why not two women, or two men, or two men and one woman?

If the moral implications were not enough, what about the health and financial consequences of legitimizing this lifestyle? Most Americans don’t understand all that is involved in the homosexual lifestyle and therefore are woefully ignorant of its inherent dangers.

Monogamy in Same Sex Marriages
A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the average non-infected male homosexual has 106 sexual partners per year. Another study released in July of this year found that the average homosexual relationship lasted only 1 years. The study also found that men in homosexual relationships had an average of eight partners per year outside of those relationships.

A study conducted by two University of Vermont psychology professors contrasted couples living in the newly formed “civil unions” with homosexuals not in unions, and with married heterosexual couples. They found that 21 percent of married men felt that sex outside of marriage was OK. Among homosexuals, 66 percent of homosexual men in committed relationships and 50 percent of homosexual men in civil unions felt the same way.

The fact that promiscuity is rampant among homosexuals is dramatically demonstrated in the landmark study conducted by researchers Bell and Weinber in the mid-1970s. The shocking results of their study found that:

43 percent of gay men estimated having sex with 500 or more different partners. 75 percent estimated 100 or more partners. 28 percent estimated more than 1,000 partners.

79 percent said that more than half of their partners were anonymous.

70 percent said that more than half of their partners were men with whom they had sex only once.

This type of activity has consequences. Due to their promiscuous lifestyle, homosexual males are 14 times more likely to contract syphilis than male heterosexuals and are thousands of times more likely to contract AIDS.

Added to the dangers of this extreme promiscuity are the dangers of the actual sexual practices of homosexuals. These two factors combined are why studies show that homosexuals account for 80 percent of America’s most serious sexually transmitted diseases. This is in spite of the fact that they represent only a tiny fraction of the overall population.

A study done in the 1990s by the Family Research Institute found that the median age of death for a homosexual male not having AIDS was only 42. According to the same study only 9 percent lived to old age.

In light of these facts we need to ask ourselves if this is a lifestyle that we, as a nation, should endorse as being on par with normal heterosexual relationships.

If we chose to do so, we can only expect that the numbers of people involved in this lifestyle will increase. And when those numbers increase, we cannot even begin to estimate the strain it will put on our healthcare system.

The Supreme Court has made it clear how it will rule when the issue of same-sex marriage comes before it. The only way to overrule a court that is out of touch with the wishes of the American people and the reality of the consequences of such a decision is to amend the Constitution. The recent ruling has given renewed support to a measure before Congress called the Federal Marriage Amendment.

The amendment simply states that marriage is a union between one man and one woman and prohibits passing any law to the contrary. While the process of amending the Constitution is intentionally difficult, this amendment has a real chance of succeeding and needs our full support.