The Gay Immigration Residency Bill
Allowing Americans in same-sex relationships to sponsor their foreign partners could potentially hurt America.
House Bill 3006, The Uniting American Families Act (formerly known as the Permanent Partners Immigration Act), proposed allowing Americans in the same -sex relationships to sponsor their foreign partners for the United States residency. I oppose the bill. This bill is not to be considered fair to the previous bill in place.
First of all, the previous bill was only looking at the traditional nuclear family structure. If an American citizen marries another person from a foreign land, he or she is given the right to sponsor that individual provided there is proof of that marriage. It also allows children that came out of that union to enter as well and/or giving the married couple the opportunity to produce children under one roof. I agree that gays have the same communal rights as any lawful and abiding citizen. They are not exempt from participating and enjoying the same benefits as others of the mainland. Even if their sexual orientation is not of the norm, they must work and enjoy the fruits of their hands in the same manner as others. What American congress is failing to see is that society is not infringing on gay people’s rights. The people did not limit them in any way and creating a bill because it is not considered fair to leave them out of the equation is totally unethical. It is not to be considered fairness to one particular group of people because one thinks they are left out. The previous bill was only allowing a family to come together and raise children which will always be the next generation.
The bill should change but be more universal for any Americans to be allowed to sponsor an individual from a foreign country provided that they will be responsible to care for the immigrant for no less than five years depending of the status of each candidate. This bill should be universal but conditional on the basis whether it is a wife, child, brother, sister, as well as aunt, cousin, friend, or sexual partner. For instance, if a single woman sponsor her child and she became ill, she may have the right to request government help to help care for the child but if she sponsor a man and she became ill, that man should care for himself as well as for the single woman? The man should not be entitled for government assistance until after five years. It should not have to be on the basis on sex. The bill should allow any American to sponsor another person from a foreign country regardless of affiliation as long as they are in a position to care for such a person financially for five years. In this way, the new immigrant will rely solely on his or her sponsor until he or she is in a position to provide for oneself without being on welfare for support.
I do not have anything against gay people because some of the nicest people around town are gays. I love them the same as any other group. However, I do not agree in the way they prefer sex as life must be extended for the world to continue. If everyone should become guy, all human life would be extinct in 100 years. Likewise, if everybody becomes a priest or a nun, the same thing would happen in 100 years. All of human like would be extinct. In either case, none is profitable to human existence. Another example, the people of one particular town in the United States (for the sanctity of the town, it is nameless at this moment), became so spiritual, they altogether withdrawn from cohabitating. Even the married couples abstained from sexual activities, yet that town had the highest rate of promiscuity. Almost all of the teenagers in that town became pregnant and had children at an early age. What this reveals is that the earth will find ways to renew itself as human life must continue. Man’s control of earth is also limited.
At the same time, the laws of America should not isolate one particular co-cultural group. What American law makers must consider is what is universally correct. Instead, we should look into what was God’s intention when he created mankind. We may approve this bill thinking we want everyone to be happy but be careful as sexual activity outside of God’s will can lead to destruction. Sexual indulgence does not make one contented if God is not in the equation. Another group may want to import animals for the sake of sex as well as human mind can go off on the wrong tangent, How will the bill defend itself when it already allowed a special group favoritism when another group want to practice bestiality. We must remember King David and King Solomon had all the wives and concubines yet they were not satisfied in the flesh. Better yet, ancient kings during antiquity had numerous wives, and God knows, maybe a few men in the mix in addition to the eunuchs that worked in the Kings palace. The spirit reveals that some of those eunuchs may have played the role of women as well during antiquity. Yet they too were not satisfied in the flesh. God also warned mankind against immoral sexual behaviors.
In light of all that, God gives us the ability to procreate so why American congress wants to go against that? It is not a matter of being the nice one but America must be fair to every co-culture or sub-culture on this planet and at the same time hold down laws that are morally correct for society.