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.



  • I don’t believe the issue of repealing DOMA has anything to do with hurt feelings JD; the “federal law” is archaic and must be changed. As we know, DADT was repealed without much ado, so shall this be too. I’ve read there are 22+ countries that allow same-sex and government recognized marriage…seems the US is behind the rest of the world these days.

    Honestly, the government should not be involved with marriage anyway…it creepy and reminds me of asking a fathers permission to marry his daughter, and I’m sure that still occurs somewhere and ok by me.

    As far as the dude with two wives, sucks to be him/them…hope they can work it out, say 50 – 50. If not, they can ask for third party arbitration.

  • Each of your analogies is so flawed that it’s difficult to believe you’ve given any thought to the issue of gay marriage.

    In the case of your friend the bigamist, only one of the three people in the relationship was willing, since you’re assuming that neither wife approved of the other’s marriage.

    The jilted lover in the fiancee analogy had the legal right to marry, and if they lived together before he shipped out, she might even have commonlaw marriage rights, depending on the state. What you want is for gay service members to be unavailable to provide legal protections for their partners.

    Your analogy of dishonored straight spouses if a lesbian won spouse of the year is not an analogy or an argument, since you’re the one who has defined ‘dishonor’ as a lesbian spouse being honored. You’ve also made the unjustified claim that any gay spouse who won such an honor wouldn’t deserve it and would only have received it because they were gay.

    Your only objection to gay marriage is the tradition of homophobia in your religion. Fortunately, equal protection under the law is a principle that was encoded into the law despite the Bible’s opposition to it as a principle.

  • @MESkeptic

    only one of the three people in the relationship was willing, since you’re assuming…

    No one is assuming anything here but you. Do you object to multiple marriages?

    The jilted lover in the fiancee analogy had the legal right to marry…

    It’s not a matter of what they are allowed to do; its what they do. The Federal government in re: the military doesn’t recognize common law marriage, so your point is moot. The military does not recognize fiances as military spouses, no matter how “dishonored” they are by the fact they aren’t treated like a spouse if their other half is killed.

    you’re the one who has defined ‘dishonor’ as a lesbian spouse being honored…

    Not true. It is an extension of the basic premise that being subject to offense creates an entitlement. If being offended justifies special treatment by the government, than what of the heterosexuals who are “offended?” If a homosexual is “dishonored” by not being notified by the military if her sexual partner is killed, there are heterosexuals who suffer the same “dishonor.” Where is the protection for them?

    Fortunately, equal protection…despite the Bible’s opposition to it as a principle.

    As just explained, homosexuals don’t want equal protection. They want special protection. That’s why so many homosexuals object to others coattailing on their sexual freedom. They apparently find others’ sexual deviance “icky,” and that’s enough for homosexuals to deny them equal “sexual freedom.”