Why Should Homosexuals Have Super Rights?

Is it fair, is it just to give those who live parasitic lives 'Super Rights?' After all, it is the duty of every member of society to contribute to the commonweal. Yet the empirical evidence indicates that those who engage in homosexuality 1) contribute less and cost more in goods and services, 2) disproportionately disrupt social functioning, and 3) have few children while being more apt to harm them.1 Thus, homosexuals not only fail to 'pay for their keep,' but by their negative influence on children, cloud society's future.
After all, it is the duty of every member of society to contribute to the commonweal. Yet the empirical evidence indicates that those who engage in homosexuality 1) contribute less and cost more in goods and services, 2) disproportionately disrupt social functioning, and 3) have few children while being more apt to harm them.(1) Thus, homosexuals not only fail to 'pay for their keep,' but by their negative influence on children, cloud society's future.
Those who engage in homosexual sex seek what they term 'gay rights.' In reality they demand Super Rights. What do I mean by Super Rights? Being empowered to override other citizens' unalienable rights (e.g., freedom of speech and association). These Super Rights (conferred by 'non-discrimination,' 'hate crime,' and 'hate speech' laws) allow homosexuals -- if they so choose -- to endanger or punish those who would exercise their associational rights to avoid them or protect their children from them. Thus, a principal knowing that homosexual teachers are more prone to have sex with pupils (empirical studies to date indicate that a male teacher who engages in homosexuality is the most apt to get sexually involved with pupils) may not want to hire a teacher who declares his affection for same-sex sex. But if the homosexual wants the job, his Super Rights trump the associational rights of the principal as well as the right of pupils not to experience extra risk (safety is part of their right to life). A couple renting out the other side of their duplex may not want to place their children at risk by renting to a gay couple. But if -- even on a whim -- the homosexuals want the duplex, their Super Rights trump the property and associational rights of the parents as well as their children's right not to be exposed to potential molestation. The Super Rights of homosexuals also squelch others' freedom of speech. Thus, a broadcaster may opine that same-sex sex is dangerous. But if a homosexual finds such speech 'offensive' his Super Rights trump the broadcaster's freedom of speech and the broadcaster may be fined or imprisoned.
In addition to subsidizing those who engage in homosexuality, the right of ordinary citizens to happiness is diminished by homosexuals' expropriation of beaches, restrooms, and rest areas for their sexual trysts. As if these violations of fairness were not enough, those fancying homosexuality run a large and growing 'quasi-secret society' to achieve their aims -- aims often inimical to social order. Examples include the 'shadow organization' in the U.S. military, which provides illegal sexual contacts and career advantages to enlisted practitioners,(2) and homosexual 'guides' (e.g., Spartacus) that specify which rest areas, parks, and restrooms have been commandeered for gay sex.
Forcing dutiful citizens to financially support and also relinquish their unalienable rights to those who don't carry their own weight while posing a risk to children ineluctably lowers the vitality of a society. As a result, while the sun still rises on those countries that give Super Rights to homosexuals, their declining birthrates assure that it will soon warm a barren landscape. So I ask again, is it fair, is it just, to give those who engage in homosexuality -- a worthless as well as dangerous amusement -- 'Super Rights?' In substantial part, the fate of Western Civilization hinges on the answer.
from The Family Research Institute / Dr. Paul Cameron