Now that the homosexual activists have succeeded in ramming same-sex marriage down our throats in so many parts of the West, the next obvious outcome is already taking place: same-sex divorce. And given that long-term relationships are not exactly a hallmark of the homosexual lifestyle, we can expect to see more and more homosexual divorce.
The truth is, most homosexuals don’t even want traditional marriage. What they do want is the social acceptance and symbolism it provides. The fight for same-sex marriage was never about homosexuals wanting to embrace heterosexual marriage. It was about making a political statement, and social engineering.
As many homosexuals themselves admit, a major reason why they want marriage is not so much to be like heterosexuals, or because they want to abandon their more free and promiscuous lifestyle, but because of its symbolic value. It will give them public recognition, approval and acceptance. This has long been the overriding goal of the homosexual lobby: complete social and public endorsement and approval. Thus by getting marriage rights, and, in turn, the last hurdle for gays, full adoption rights, homosexuals will have achieved their longstanding goal: legitimising the gay lifestyle.
A leading American homosexual who has championed the cause of gay marriage, Jonathan Rauch, admits that this will be an important effect of same sex marriage: “it will ennoble and dignify gay love and sex as it has done straight love and sex”.
But the concept of same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, for many reasons. Consider the lesbian couple who led the charge for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts a few years ago. They “married” in 2004. But earlier this month they filed for divorce.
Actually, their “marriage” lasted a bit longer than most. The idea of committed, long-term relationships is not the cup of tea for most homosexuals. A recent study of homosexual men in Amsterdam found that the “duration of steady partnerships” was 1.5 years. If that is a steady partnership, one wonders what a non-steady one is like. Moreover, the study noted that homosexual men with a “steady partner” have 8 casual sexual partners a year.
A leading Australian homosexual activist admits to this: “Monogamy is not a realistic choice for many of us . . . we don’t find one partner sufficiently fulfilling. People who argue that there would be no problem if all gay men would just be monogamous are ignoring both medical and emotional realities; with an unknown number of people already exposed to ‘the virus’ and an unknown incubation period, such advice is just too restrictive.”
He goes even further, saying that “it does seem clear that among gay men a long-lasting monogamous relationship is almost unknown. Indeed both gay women and gay men tend to be involved in what might be called multiple relationships, though of somewhat different kinds.”
Even Rauch admits that “male-male couples put a somewhat lower value on sexual fidelity within a relationship than do male-female couples,” although he goes on to say that the “somewhat” may not be that much of a big deal.
Thus long term homosexual relationships are rare, and for those male couples who do actually stay together for longer periods of time, the prevalence of monogamy is quite low. Studies continue to document this fact. In a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships, only seven couples claimed to have a totally exclusive sexual relationship. But these seven were in relationships lasting less than five years. The authors comment: “Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.” Thus the norm is having outside sexual activity.
As one commentator put it, “Even if we set aside infidelity and allow a generous definition of ‘long-term relationships’ as those that last at least four years, under 8 per cent of either male or female homosexual relationships fit the definition. In short, there is practically no comparison possible to heterosexual marriage in terms of either fidelity or longevity”.
But the folly in pushing for same-sex marriage is not just about this general lack of commitment among homosexual relationships. There are other social concerns. When the state gets in the business of promoting same-sex marriage, all sorts of negative fallout takes place.
A recent article by Brian Camenker about the situation in Massachusetts highlights these dangers. He looks at the harmful impact in education, in law, in public health, and in other key areas. Consider the schools, for example. Camenker documents how school children are being force fed homosexual propaganda:
“-At my own children’s high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex ‘marriage’ in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be ‘marrying’ their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students.
“-Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. ‘In my mind, I know that, “OK, this is legal now.” If somebody wants to challenge me, I’ll say, “Give me a break. It’s legal now,”.’ she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.
“-By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.
“-Second graders at the same school were read a book, ‘King and King’, about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child.
“-In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!”
He examines numerous other areas where state-enforced social engineering is now taking place because of the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. He says, “Like everywhere else in America, the imposition of same-sex marriage on the people of Massachusetts was a combination of radical, arrogant judges and pitifully cowardly politicians.” And now everyone is paying the price. He concludes,
“It’s pretty clear that the homosexual movement’s obsession with marriage is not because large numbers of them actually want to marry each other. Research shows that homosexual relationships are fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels, and ‘marriage’ as we know it isn’t something they can achieve, or even desire. (In fact, over the last three months, the Sunday Boston Globe’s marriage section hasn’t had any photos of homosexual marriages. In the beginning it was full of them.) This is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposing it with force throughout the various social and political institutions of a society that would never accept it otherwise. To the rest of America: You’ve been forewarned.”
Indeed, the rest of the world has now been forewarned. Whether it heeds these warnings is a moot point.