factbat.com

So just what are gay rights, and why does it appear that the majority of homosexuals believe that being born with the same inalienable rights all other citizens in this nation are born with is just not enough for them?

The ACLU has been sending people to my area to canvass the citizenry in an attempt to recruit new members who may be sympathetic to the plight of homosexuals in the State of California.

While I do not openly disparage homosexuals, I certainly do not agree with their behaviors nor their extremely aggressive nature as regards indiscriminate sexual encounters. Especially with minors and children. Whatever latitude is given homosexuals in an attempt to diffuse much of the stigma which has been logically attached to the behavior, the fact still stands that the majority of them are pedophiles.

Furthermore, I must say that I am sick and tired of being approached by people who complain that their own personal preferences are not being supported and condoned by other people, and incessantly request that I assist them in demanding that they be protected under a misconstrued version of the Constitution. Forced social acceptance is not what the Constitution was created for. Nor does it allow for any private institution to be afforded any form of governmentally sanctioned preference.

Married heterosexual couples being afforded particular rights under the law is a necessary function due to the fact that these couples generally create offspring which, for the purpose of posterity, must not be denied various familial edifices which come under attack from contemporary mechanisms that, however inadvertently, often exist as obstacles to such genetic structures. Also, tax credits and other incentives are logically offered those who are producing this nation's most vital resource...children.

Logically, the United States Constitution does not in any way attempt to infringe upon the institution of marriage or any other private union engaged in by the people of this country. Neither does it make any provisions for those who choose to be homosexual. Furthermore, it is not allowed to.

To attempt to create some special facet of law that seeks to force the people of this nation into conceding the sanctity of marriage, one of the most important mechanisms of familial fidelity ever created, is preposterous. Furthermore, anyone who truly intends to ignore the legitimacy of this institution, simply exposes their irascible nature and essentially disingenuous intentions.

There are homosexuals who argue that they should be given the same tax benefits and legal rights as heterosexual married couples. However, there is no basis for this. And the only argument they appear to be incessant of proffering is one that claims that simply because heterosexual married couples get something, then two gay men or women pretending to engage in the same union should also get the same treatment.

To insist that homosexuals be allowed to marry and receive all of the benefits now afforded heterosexual married couples is like demanding that plumbers be paid a movie star’s salary.

The citizens of this nation are merely born with the same inalienable rights, responsibilities and opportunities. The Constitution in no way intends to guarantee anyone that life itself is fair or that one is guaranteed an equal existence regardless of their choices. The Constitution is simply designed to guarantee that all have a voice and are not deprived of life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.

However, homosexuals interpret this to mean that homosexuality should be sanctioned and rewarded by the government.

The truth is that the average homosexual union is that which allows those who engaging in such the time and opportunity to work four jobs between the two of them without being required to provide for the myriad expenditures of the average heterosexual union.

Heterosexual couples must provide for extra medical care for the female as regards regular exams, prenatal care, maternity visits, child birth, child rearing, pediatric visits, elementary schooling, college and an extremely numerous amount of other expenses, cares and worries. Homosexual relationships are neither capable of, nor required to provide for, these kinds of responsibilities.

Those fighting for what they call "gay rights" also constantly cite various inequities and brutalities occurring in heterosexual relationships as some indemnification of the obvious inequities entirely inherent and unavoidable in homosexual relationships.

First of all, everybody understands that essentially "two wrongs don't make a right". Furthermore, the fact that there are problems in this world is no excuse for behaving badly. What is imperative to progress is recognizing the wrongs and their causes, and then taking steps to right those wrongs. Not simply expect to be able to complacently ignore the wrongs one does not desire to engage, and instead seek some personally acceptable alternative.

What is remarkable is that when engaging these people who are petitioning citizens on city streets, is that once the conversation evolves to a point where I am making logical sense and questioning their desire to circumvent the Constitution, they invariably say “well, it is obvious we fundamentally disagree, and I have to get back to work.” To say that they must get back to work clearly exposes the lack of personal initiative concerning the issues. These people are quite obviously getting paid by the ACLU and receiving their marching orders and talking points from the organization, rather than simply volunteering for what they believe to be a worthy cause.

I wonder just how many of them are actually homosexual. So far, all of the people who have approached me from the ACLU on this issue have claimed to be gay.

One of the talking points of these gay activists is the claim that homosexuals are not given the same “protection under the law” as the rest of the citizenry. However, there is no actual evidence of this alleged “discrimination” against homosexuals being tolerated by any legislature, judiciary or law enforcement agency.

What comes to bear however, is the issue of whether employers have the right to refuse to hire homosexuals. When one take’s into consideration that homosexuality, regardless of claims to the contrary, is a choice, then it becomes more difficult to consider any aversion to those who engage in it as a form of bigotry or intolerance.

There is every reason to believe that homosexuals are more predisposed to cultivate an environment of perversion where open acts of depravity become commonplace and excessive. To witness this behavior all one needs to do is patronize the average gay bar, or attempt to use a public toilet in just about any park, beach area or remote location.

The disgusting sexual behaviors of homosexual men in public toilets is astonishing to say the least.

Another argument by these ACLU members is that homosexuals should not be prevented from adopting children. These activists actually expect the average American citizen to ignore the obvious confusion and social disparity that is likely to be caused a child who is forced to witness two men or two women in a sexual relationship.

To place a young human mind in such a questionable environment is one of the most abusive and disrespectful things the adults of this world could ever do to a child.

Just who do these homosexuals think they are? And why do they incessantly ignore the fact that they are themselves existing in a perverse reality that is entirely opposed to any mechanism of nature which guarantee’s the survival of the species?

What kind of lethargic, complacent and depraved individual does it take to completely ignore their own perverse behavior to the point that, rather than seek some remedy or recourse against it, they instead attempt to force the rest of the world to concede that it is not actually a perversion?

Truly, if this society is to continue on such a corrosive trajectory of denial, for any reason, it will only lead to further perversions which will manifest exponentially progressing negative effects until some conflagrating calamity forces the species to drastically reform its behaviors…or face increasingly destructive cataclysmic results.

What presents as both fortunate and unfortunate in this analogy, is the fact that humanity is not capable of self-annihilation, and therefore, if determined on a course inhospitable to human design function parameters, will experience unimaginably perverse consequences nearer any possible cloture.