There seems to be quite a bit of hue and cry regarding the rights of homosexual persons, particularly, the supposed right to marry. Many innocent yet ignorant people get sucked into this debate, and from an admirable sense of kindness agree homosexual couples should have the legal right to marry. I appreciate the decency that guides this decision, but it ignores what the Bible says, as well as what social scientists clearly know – homosexuality is morally wrong and is a stone to the neck of any society that allows it, much less promotes it.

The Bill of Rights guarantees every American the right to freedom of religion, speech, press, and due process. Also protection from unreasonable search and seizures, double jeopardy, and self-incrimination. Homosexuals have always enjoyed all of these rights, and no one is trying to deprive them of such. When homosexuals speak of being denied their rights, they don’t have in mind these constitutionals rights, but those described in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This protects against discrimination based on race, color, gender, religion, and national origin.

Constitutional rights restrict the government. When these rights are extended to a group or class from whom they had been denied, it doesn’t deny said rights from those who enjoyed these rights previously. For example, when the right to vote was given to blacks and then women, this did not inhibit the right to vote for white men.

In contrast, civil rights restrict what was a freedom from private entities when it serves a greater national good. For example, before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer had the right to refuse to hire someone just because he was black. It clearly serves a national interest to deny this employer of the right to discriminate based on race.

Some argue that homosexual marriage should be sanctioned to provide the rights of marriage to people not married. The benefits supposedly given are available now without the government getting involved in legitimizing homosexual marriages. For example, some say homosexual couples should be allowed to be in state recognized homosexual marriages so one can visit a partner in the hospital. The fact is homosexuals are not denied visitation rights based on sexual preference.

Except when a doctor limits visitation for medical reasons, final authority over who may visit an adult patient rests with that patient. This is and should be the case regardless of the sexual orientation or marital status of the patient or the visitor. The only situation in which there would be a possibility that the blood relatives of a patient might attempt to exclude the patient's homosexual partner is if the patient is unable to express his or her wishes due to unconsciousness or mental incapacity. Homosexual partners concerned about this possibility can effectively preclude it by granting to one another a health care proxy (the legal right to make medical decisions for the patient) and a power of attorney (the right to make all legal decisions for another person). Homosexual marriages are not necessary for this.

As with the hospital visitation issue, the concern over inheritance rights is something that simply does not require homosexual marriage to resolve it. Nothing in current law prevents homosexual partners from being joint owners of property such as a home or a car, in which case the survivor would automatically become the owner if the partner dies. An individual may leave the remainder of his estate to whomever he wishes simply by writing a will.

It is ironic that activists are now seeking Social Security survivor benefits for homosexual partners, since Congress originally intended these benefits as a way of supporting a very traditional family structure – one in which the husband worked to provide the family's income while the wife stayed home to keep house and raise the children. Social Security survivor benefits were designed to recognize the non-monetary contribution made to a family by the homemaking and child-rearing activities of a wife and mother, and to ensure that a woman and her children would not become destitute if the husband and father were to die.

Very few homosexual couples organize their lives along the lines of such a “traditional” division of labor and roles. They are far more likely to consist of two earners, each of whom can be supported in old age by their own personal Social Security pension. Furthermore, far fewer homosexual couples than heterosexual ones are raising children at all, for the obvious reason that they are incapable of natural reproduction with each other. This, too, reduces the likelihood of a traditional division of labor among them. Homosexual couples want the benefits of a traditional family without offering to society the benefits of such a family.

The legal and financial benefits of marriage are not an entitlement to be distributed equally to all (if they were, single people would have as much reason to consider them "discriminatory" as same-sex couples). Society grants benefits to marriage because marriage has benefits for society. Homosexual relationships, on the other hand, have no comparable benefit for society, and in fact impose substantial costs on society.

According to moderate U.S. Government statistics, a sparse few are homosexual (2.5% of men, 1.8% of women). And where same-sex marriages and domestic partnerships have been legalized, very few, less than 10%, have sought them out. So, legal homosexual marriage would only suit a small portion of a small portion of people.

Regarding the issue of homosexuality being genetic, consider a couple of arguments. First, one born with black skin always has black skin, and does not go back and forth to white. Reliable government statistics say that less than 1% of homosexuals (0.9% of men, 0.4% of women) have been exclusively homosexual all their lives. Homosexuality cannot be genetic if almost all homosexuals came out of heterosexuality, or as with many, with reparative therapy, leave homosexuality and return to a straight lifestyle. The matter is clearly a choice. Second, if a particular genetic trait, such a green eyes, left one sterile, then it would not take long before green eyes would be bred out of the human race. Since homosexual activity cannot reproduce, and in this case would be comparable to sterility regarding a trait, homosexuality would disappear if it were genetic but had no way of passing that genetic information on. Not only is homosexuality a choice, but it is an evil one, and should not be supported by state sanctioned homosexual marriages. To permit homosexual marriages as standard, accepted, as protected would serve as nothing more than a club to the kneecap of an already limping American social structure.