I didn't listen to the Kern speech but it was probably not PC. Except when you consider that many of the biggest civilizations on Earth have met their demise at a time when homosexuality was accepted 100%. Gibbons in "The Rise of Fall of the Roman Empire" gave homosexuality as one of the reasons for the fall. Greece at it's height fully accepted gays.
It is hard to prove that one thing or another causes something but stop for a moment and consider the consequences of individuals NOT procreating. If I lived somewhere where homosexuality was acceptable, might I not be more inclined to shack up with a sexual partner who had no danger of bringing the added responsibilities of child rearing? I am a libertarian of sorts but I also believe in the uniqueness of the human being and would like to see the species survive. With or without homosexuality, Homo sapiens would continue but for optimum evolutionary success, the pool must be refreshed and not allowed to go stagnant.
Those who seek to further their gain in society must be prepared to draw the line at absolutes. They must acknowledge differences (the Kerns of this world) and understand that the world is better off with Kerns and, yes, with homosexuals. I fully understand the dilemma of someone different from the majority, standing up for his/her rights, and being met with ridicule, prejudice, and even condemnation. But gays are making good progress. I empathize with them but when you are a minority you should proceed quietly to make your position known while at the same time going out of your way not to scare the majority into thinking you are taking over. Take a lesson from the rich. They do not flaunt their wealth like the aristocracy in pre-revolutionary France. They've learned to quietly exist within their own communities.
