Simply reading through the homosexual press this becomes clear. Many seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. Article titles such as "How to Stay Married and Still Be a Slut" are not all that uncommon. Many homosexuals happily admit that traditional heterosexual marriage constraints are not exactly their cup of tea.

One homosexual writer for example, Andrew Sullivan, writes that if homosexual marriage contracts come into force, they would have to be "different": that is, they would have to allow for "extra-marital outlets" and other major changes. Of course that undermines the very essence of marriage, which is the covenant of life-long sexual faithfulness.

It is worth quoting Sullivan further here. He speaks about the "foibles of a simple heterosexual model" for homosexual relationships. And then he makes this telling admission:

"I believe strongly that marriage should be made available to everyone, in a politics of strict public neutrality. But within this model, there is plenty of scope for cultural difference. There is something baleful about the attempt of some gay conservatives to educate homosexuals and lesbians into an uncritical acceptance of a stifling model of heterosexual normality. The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness."

Elizabeth Kristol offers some trenchant commentary on this: "Rote? Stifling? Moralistic? These are strange epithets to come upon in the final pages of a book whose goal is to convince readers that homosexuals want to marry and deserve to marry; that homosexual love is as dignified as heterosexual love; that it is inhumane not to allow the dignity of this love to find fruition in marriage; that marriage is so venerable an institution that it is single-handedly capable of leading men out of lives of empty promiscuity into unions of commitment and fidelity. Suddenly we learn, almost as an afterthought, that the institution of marriage may have to change to accommodate the special needs of homosexuals."

Same-sex marriage proponent Richard Mohr openly affirms the importance of "flexibility" in same-sex unions. He is unashamed in saying this: "Monogamy is not an essential component of love and marriage." Lesbian activist Paula Ettelbrick put it this way:

"Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . . . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . . . As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. . . . In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. . . . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's views of reality."

I can produce many pages of such quotes. What is of real interest here is that even some of the mainstream media are beginning to catch on. Indeed, in no less of a leftist stalwart as the New York Times appeared this very telling article about the fundamentally different nature of homosexual relationships.

The NYT piece mentions a "study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many". The article continues, "New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years - about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

"That consent is key. 'With straight people, it's called affairs or cheating,' said Colleen Hoff, the study's principal investigator, 'but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.' The study also found open gay couples just as happy in their relationships as pairs in sexually exclusive unions."

An article in Christianity Today commenting on the NYT piece says: "Other same-sex marriage advocates say a legal change would transform the institution. New York University professor Judith Stacey, testifying before Congress against the Defense of Marriage Act, said changing the law to allow same-sex partners to marry would help 'supplant the destructive sanctity of the family" and help it assume 'varied, creative, and adaptive contours,' including 'small group marriages.'

The CT article concludes with these thoughts: "Whether or not marriage law should change, the fact is that changing it to include same-sex partnerships would teach people that marriage is fundamentally about the emotional union of adults and not primarily about the bodily union of man and wife (let alone the children who result from such a union). The norms of permanence, monogamy, and fidelity would make less sense under such a change.

"Consider changes in divorce laws. The spread of no-fault divorce in the 1970s didn't just make it easier for men and women to get out of troubled marriages. It also changed people's ideas about the permanence of the institution and the responsibility parents have to their children. It had other unintended consequences as well. Studies showed that after divorce laws were changed, spouses tended to invest less in their marriages. Economists found that spouses in states that had passed no-fault divorce laws were 10 percent less likely to put the spouse through college or graduate school and 6 percent less likely to have a child together.

"Marriage rates fell and cohabitation rates increased as men and women lost confidence in the institution. Some 20 percent of children are now born to cohabiting couples, the majority of whom will see their parents split up by the time they reach adolescence. Legal changes have consequences. But no matter how marriage laws may change, we can, paradoxically, find more freedom in chastity - which calls for abstinence when unmarried and sexual fidelity when married - than in any form of open marriage."

The attempt by homosexual activists to radically alter the fundamental nature of marriage will mean nothing less than its destruction. Of course, as has been demonstrated above, that will be very good news indeed for the militant social engineers. But it will be bad news for society, for couples, and especially for children.

END