U.S.: Couples, do your duty!

Canberra, May. 11 (UPI) -- Australia's treasurer says it is the "patriotic duty" of couples to have at least three children.

Peter Costello said two youngsters per couple in a nation of 20 million just isn't enough to sustain growth.

He made the remarks while announcing a $13 billion package that will pay couples $2,000 for each baby born after June, Sky News reported Tuesday.

The initiative will be available for the next five years.

"You should have ... one for your husband, one for your wife, and one for your country," Costello said.

He said some couples may have to go a step further by having extra children "for your country" to make up the gap left by some "who are not even replicating themselves."

The father of three ended the news conference by telling reporters, "You go home and do your patriotic duty tonight."

With all the "wuk" Aussie men will have to put down for this, I hope the treasurer encourages them to drink pacro water, too.

The corollary to this will be a decline in the promotion of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. For, if you think state sponsored procreation will not have an impact on the forward movment of homosexual rights, think again.

By definition, homosexuality is non-replicating; thus it is antithetical to the continued existence of humanity. For Western societies confronted with a booming Islamic population and a declining Western one, homosexuality is a luxury that pretty soon may no longer be affordable. If Western civilization is to survive, a necessary social component in the WoT must be the increase in family size, church attendance, and education in its tenets and ideals.

Since homosexuality yields a null return, it is contrary to the desired goal of population increase; therefore, it will become a value that society must not promote as an acceptable alternative.

One might argue that with new scientific technololgy, such as cloning and in vitro fertilization, even homosexuals may "have" three children. That is quite so. However, it remains necessary for the society to support those who can be expected to proliferate naturally, or with the aid of fertility drugs; for natural or enhanced procreation ensures that the increase in family size remains within cost parameters that are acceptable to the society at large.

Will states be willing to accommodate homosexual "procreation" by spending above the amount they allocate to encourage hetersexual procreation? That is doubtful and unlikely. Since many heterosexual couples can produce children naturally at $2,000 a pop, I don't envision that the Australian state, for instance, will be willing to spend $12,000 (a random number) to ensure that homosexuals may have some non-existent procreational equality under the law.

I wonder how soon before cries of discrimination will come from the homosexual community?