Homosexual Agenda Driven by Hurt Feelings
The Stars and Stripes repeats an Associated Press article under the headline “Military’s same-sex couples say DOMA dishonors service, sacrifice” [updated link]. The basic gist is that it’s not fair to deny homosexuals the recognition heterosexuals receive.
Perhaps without realizing it, homosexuals are, by extension, claiming anyone who is offended is de facto worthy of being treated as if they were what they are not.
What about the Soldier who marries another woman while still married at home — both of his wives deserve benefits, too, right? After all, their feelings will undoubtedly be hurt if they are “left out.”
A woman on the homefront learns her military fiancé has been killed in combat. Even though she’s not married, failure to recognize her relationship means she is “disrespected” and experiences “pain, to actually be shut out.” So she should be treated as though she were a military spouse, too, right?
What about current military spouses whose service and sacrifice were “dishonored” when a homosexual was voted “spouse of the year” not because of anything she did as a military spouse, but because she was a homosexual? Is the military required to accede to their offense — which was palpable in some forums — and turn around and deny homosexuals benefits because they’re offending heterosexuals?
Stories of love and loss, service and sacrifice, in the military are tragic, regardless of who they happen to. But it defies logic and common sense to choose an immoral lifestyle and then demand others grant special privileges because of that choice.
Nevermind the fact that other unmarried individuals have long been in precisely the same position, “denied benefits” because their relationship with the Soldier in the flag-draped casket wasn’t recognized. Unless they chose to have sex with someone of the same gender, their loss apparently wasn’t as great.
Tell that to this fiancé and their three kids.
Federal law currently recognizes marriage as only between a man and a woman. That doesn’t mean that two people of the same gender cannot enter a relationship, nor that a person cannot enter a relationship with two people, their parent, or an animal. It simply means that relationship will not be recognized as valid for governmental purposes.
Two consenting adults who have a relationship and then experience loss in combat are certainly worthy of sympathy. But if it turns out their relationship wasn’t recognized under the law — whether they weren’t actually married, or their marriage wasn’t recognized because they were siblings — that doesn’t mean they should be granted special rights to give them that for which they do not qualify.
That doesn’t mean they are undeserving of sympathy, but sympathy alone is insufficient cause to alter moral standards or the law. Homosexuality is opposed as immoral among the vast majority of the world religious faithful, including Christians. Christians have and act with compassion faithfully — but that doesn’t mean they support or endorse sinful conduct.
After all, the US military has never recognized, validated, or supported troops who choose to have sex outside of marriage — another immoral lifestyle choice practiced by far more people than homosexuality. Why is homosexuality granted a greater benefit?
Of course, sympathy is a powerful motivator in public opinion, and Americans are, by nature, compassionate — especially when it comes to its military.
Homosexuals smartly tapped a sensitive well.