A fellow blogger wrote elsewhere:
They [gays] aren’t going to change their lifestyles simply because we disapprove of it. That’s a fact, so some sort of accommodation must be made.
First statement is probably true–though there are many ex-gays today who say they found they were able to enjoy heterosex after all. Second statement is NOT a necessary conclusion. We don’t legally accomodate statutory rape (girls being too young for older men) –pedophiles –adulterers –bigamists, polygamists –etc. All of these have sexual proclivities that society prosecutes or frowns upon –rather than accommodating. Gays are looking for legitimacy for inclinations that should have been rejected in the mind at the first thought –and rejected at the first opportunity for intimacy. They want (and are gaining) societal legitimacy and approval for their activities, some of which are very dangerous and harmful and disease-prone –and addictive and promiscuous. They want approval for same-sex relationships and activities which most parents dread for their children.
As parents, we’d be furious at any older (or even same age) homosexual that lured a young son into that life and contributed to a gay self-image and gave him AIDS –and we probably wouldn’t want the old gink admitted to his hospital room where he lay dying of AIDS –and we’d probably want him buried in a plot of our choice instead of Chester the Molester’s. However, by current law, if he is 18 or older he could make his own living will and determine who visits and who buries him –he can keep the will in the medical chart and discuss it with his doctor. Granted, if he hadn’t gotten his “crotch” alligned with some gay guy’s posterior, he wouldn’t be dying of or spreading AIDS or putting the health care team at risk from his body fluids. I think homosexuality is at least a public health risk. (This was hypothetical, BTW, as I don't have any gay children.)
I’m more willing to accommodate illegals –accommodation to people who sneaked in here to work and make a better life than they had in Mexico–than accommodating people’s illicit sexual proclivities.
Call it “crotch politics” as the blogger Mudraker does. Sex is a powerful drive, responsible for much good in the world (including the proliferation of the miraculous human race and the pleasure factor) –and it has also been a powerful force to control with the discipline, bliss, and societal benefits and restrictions of solid hetero marriages which may or may not be blessed with children.
Children are for society’s benefit; when raised to be respectful of their parents, they grow up to care for the elderly parents, bring joys that help to dispell depression and loneliness, provide the social security for the aged and others in need, provide national defense, and they provide a safe haven for THEIR offspring growing up in a sometimes lonely, cruel world. A functional home is the best mental health center for its members and friends–along with good church community. Functional hetero marriage with kids is the gift to oneself that keeps on giving, generation after generation. That's the one that deserves the perks for the sacrifice of raising a family --or for at least following God's bio-design by marrying the opposite sex.
Yes, there is misery in human families, but much less so when all are seeking to be disciples of Christ and students of the Word of God--when they love and parent wisely. And yes, there is poverty with indiscriminate baby-making–especially when fathers abandon the mothers. The Protestant church typically does NOT oppose some kinds of birth control. They have a different view of God’s sovereignty usually –believing we are stewards of our own fertility, to some extent. They don't have a negative anti-pleasure view of marriage --as is sometimes said of their Catholic monastic brethren.
The gay couples can provide their own accommodations through all the legal means available to them –namely WILLS, joint ownership by names on deeds, naming each other as beneficiaries, etc. They don’t NEED our accommodations same as hetero couples get, they WANT them! No one would say they can’t have all the benefits of best friends who share housing and expenses because they never found hetero spouses –But we don’t want to hear about their sexual activities, implicitly or otherwise. They want to be viewed as “normal” having sex when the sexual aspect of that lifestyle is neither normal or necessary or productive nor, in most cases, are they even “financially needy for family perks” –since, being childless, both can work full time without the additional constraints, requirements and huge expenses and complications of child-bearing and child-rearing.
As for equal rights, gays have the same rights as other people --to marry someone of the opposite sex and pro-create or adopt children into a family with a Mom and a Dad.
There is no societal obligation to re-arrange itself so gay couples can adopt, since there are plenty of hetero couples wanting to do so. However, even if they do, those children will be provided for on insurance policies of at least one parent –or by the real father if adoption is not recognized. There is no evidence to date that adoption by a gay couple is advantageous to children compared to adoption by a mom and dad.
And gay couples don’t, by definition of their union alone, NECESSARILY QUALIFY for family and marriage benefits which are designed to protect children and mothers, who either need help with child care or have to stay home with their children. They are not just LIKE a man and woman who are designed to go together biologically since the dawn of time –whose unions have been recognized as the basis of the FAMILY –and SOCIETIES are made of FAMILIES with providing fathers and nurturing mothers (and vice versa) who confine their “crotch access” to each other, sanctioned by most cultures’ marital laws, traditions and religions.
There isn’t any reason for one of them to be dependent on the other –whereas in normal marriages, many couples still choose the traditional at-home role for MOm, helping to guide, nurture the children and grand-children, and run the house –if the husband can afford it. Some find it is more expensive to have mother work outside the home. Transporting kids to schools and school events, lessons and sports, becomes a big part of a mother’s fulltime job –and running the car to repair –taking care of family business and mail –volunteer work –keeping up the kitchen, laundry, house– Stay at home MOms find plenty to do –and many are home-schooling, following the school schedule and providing excellent education –in great part because they don’t want their childrens’ faith and Christian values undermined by educators like Mudly who have agnostic atheism and moral relativity as part of their teaching agenda., who bear hostility toward people of faith and their moral convictions which they have a right to pass on to their children without interference by liberal educators wanting to liberalize other people’s children. An available grandmother is a real blessing to a young family for counsel, problem solving, baby sitting, emotional uplift for all –and in turn, we are blessed and feel purposeful to a whole lot of people.
I’ve heard women insulted on blogs for the luxury of “sitting on their fat A’s” –because their husbands can afford them to be home. If I would take a fulltime job, I would take that job from someone who needs it. We don’t really need it at this stage of our lives. I have plenty to do and my husband can afford the luxury that is ME! LOL! Besides, after bearing and raising four nice, law-abiding citizens all the way through and beyond college and helping with grandchildren, now, I deserve "early retirement." I'll be 62 this year --and may finally have an empty nest this year. Thanks to grandchildren, I don't think I'll get depressed! or lonely!
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
