I recently listened to a radio broadcast in which the hosts declared society is depriving homosexuals of their rights by denying them the right to marry.
Surprisingly, callers professing to be Christians called in to say they believe gay marriage is wrong, but do not feel they have the right to restrict how others live.
Many have bought in to the idea that religious principles of morality cannot be used to develop public policy. While this is patently contrary to American history, it illustrates that conservatives must be prepared to present secular evidence that justifies our positions in order to engage a growing population that is cynical of biblical concepts of morality.
Given that, why should gay marriage be prohibited? Marriage is, by its terms, an exclusive relationship, which limits the number of participants in each marriage, mandates minimum ages of the participants, and (for now) the sexes of the couple.
All of these are based upon society’s experience that this is the best model for the family unit. However, we are now being told that model should be modified.
The problem is, homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle.
Several studies over the last 15 years conclude the life expectancy for homosexual men and women is approximately 20-30 years less than the heterosexual population.
In addition, studies have shown the incidence of breast cancer is 300 percent greater in the lesbian population than in their heterosexual counterparts. If any other activity caused such a reduction in life expectancy or propensity for disease, the federal government would regulate it out of existence.
Yet, in the face of these inherent dangers, Congress is now considering hate crimes legislation that would make sexual orientation a protected class.
Even assuming the argument that homosexuals are born gay, if people are born with a congenital condition that decreases their life expectancy by a third, don’t we have an obligation to cure this condition rather than granting it government sanction?
There are legitimate public health concerns that demand taxpayers not be forced to condone and subsidize unhealthy lifestyles. We must not sacrifice prudent public policy and morality for the sake of political correctness.
Ethan Underwood
Cumming
Surprisingly, callers professing to be Christians called in to say they believe gay marriage is wrong, but do not feel they have the right to restrict how others live.
Many have bought in to the idea that religious principles of morality cannot be used to develop public policy. While this is patently contrary to American history, it illustrates that conservatives must be prepared to present secular evidence that justifies our positions in order to engage a growing population that is cynical of biblical concepts of morality.
Given that, why should gay marriage be prohibited? Marriage is, by its terms, an exclusive relationship, which limits the number of participants in each marriage, mandates minimum ages of the participants, and (for now) the sexes of the couple.
All of these are based upon society’s experience that this is the best model for the family unit. However, we are now being told that model should be modified.
The problem is, homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle.
Several studies over the last 15 years conclude the life expectancy for homosexual men and women is approximately 20-30 years less than the heterosexual population.
In addition, studies have shown the incidence of breast cancer is 300 percent greater in the lesbian population than in their heterosexual counterparts. If any other activity caused such a reduction in life expectancy or propensity for disease, the federal government would regulate it out of existence.
Yet, in the face of these inherent dangers, Congress is now considering hate crimes legislation that would make sexual orientation a protected class.
Even assuming the argument that homosexuals are born gay, if people are born with a congenital condition that decreases their life expectancy by a third, don’t we have an obligation to cure this condition rather than granting it government sanction?
There are legitimate public health concerns that demand taxpayers not be forced to condone and subsidize unhealthy lifestyles. We must not sacrifice prudent public policy and morality for the sake of political correctness.
Ethan Underwood
Cumming