Ask yourself this question: What, really, is wrong with
homosexuality?
The truth is, you can't answer that question without
reference to some religious authority. Otherwise, there is
no reasonable, rational basis for saying that it is "wrong"
to be gay. That means that the whole anti-gay sentiment
is based on religion, and laws discriminating against gays
are nothing more than attempts to force a religious belief
on the whole nation, and to persecute persons on the basis
of whether they adhere to a religious belief or not.
But the religious bigots say it is a choice. It may be
partially a choice -- whether to follow a strong inclination
,or force oneself to avoid it. For some gays, it is almost
impossible not to follow the inclination to be gay. BUT SO
WHAT IF IT IS A CHOICE! Religion is a choice. Do civilized
people persecute others who choose a different religion?
Why would they persecute others who choose a different
sexual orientation?
Then why do so many people hate gays? The answer is simple.
(1) Because they are different. Ignorant, unsophisticated
people always hate or dislike people who are different:
different races, different religions, different anything.
And gays certainly are different. They are forced to be
different by nature, and if they are to have a healthy
adjustment, they are compelled to accept themselves as
different.. That is probably why there are so many artists
and creative people who are gay. A creative person cannot
fear differences, otherwise he will just follow the herd,
and there is nothing creative about that.
(2) Males hate other males that are gay out of fear. Being
gay is just an exaggerated form of male bonding, which is
something most verile males develop. Therefore,
unsophisticated males feel threatened because they are
unsure whether or not the feelings they have for other males
are actually homosexual feelings. The very existence of a
gay person makes them uncertain about themselves, and this
uncomfortable feeling expresses itself as hatred for the
source of the questioning. Otherwise, a gay person would be
nothing more than a different animal, like a dog or a cat.
It is on the basis of all those kinds of feelings, hatreds,
andprejudices that people react to gays. Gays are just as
much a discriminated-against minority as any other
minority. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see other
minorities who want freedom fromdiscrimination for
themselves, but who are unable to see that gays are
suffering the same kind of discrimination that they do.
Heterosexuals are not some sort of high-minded moral giants who restrict themselves to sexual
activity with the opposite sex because it is "ordained of God", they are simply doing what
comes naturally--as do gay people. The ONLY thing that separates the two is sexual preference.
1. Religion is a behavior. It can be changed at any time. Yet the law protects us all from
discrimination based on religion. What's the difference?
2. Gays want all people, heterosexuals included, to be protected from discrimination based on
sexual orientation.
Until the Civil Rights Act of 1965, discrimination based on religion in employment, public
accomodations, etc. was perfectly legal. Why did it take so long? It was included with other
characteristics protected from discrimination, including race and sex. Why were they included?
They certainly weren't part of the founding of our nation. It looks like your history is off a
little.
"Joshua T. Heard" wrote:
> > In our country, we have the freedom to discriminate. We discriminate every
> day we go into a supermarket to buy goods.
No we don't discriminate... we choose according to our
preferences. Just because I buy chocolate ice-cream and you don't but buy strawberry instead
does not mean I am discriminating against strawberry and you are discriminating against
chocolate. We are simply acting on our preferences.
> An exception to this general
> rule has been made for things about people they cannot change, i.e. race, or
> things they should not be forced to change because it is a constitutional
> right, ie religion.
Religious behaviour is a choice that can easily be changed yet it is constitutionally
protected.
> Homosexuals are demanding to be an exception to this
> rule based on the fact they engage in homosexual behavior.
What about gay virgins or who have never engaged in homosexual
behaviour? What about celibate gays who do not engage in homosexual behaviour?
> However, I
> should be able to discriminate against someone based on their behavior. For
> instance, I like my friends because they do things that I do. If someone is
> rude to me, or is a lazy worker, I should be able to not be forced to
> associate with them or hire them.
YEs and no. You are confusing freedom of association with legal discrimination. YOu have
the perfect right to have whom you want as a friend [freedom of association]. Once you offer
employment in the public marketplace, you must follow the laws of commerce and are forbidden
to discriminate. If you ran a business and were seeking staff, would you put an ad in the
paper saying "only blacks/whites need apply" or "no Asians need apply"?
>Thus, if I have an objection to
> homosexual activity, I should not be forced to associate with those engaging
> in such behavior.
Exactly! You have freedom of association in your personal life and nobody is forcing you to
associate with gays. However your personal views, and the views of the law are different.
There is no freedom of association for statutes - they must be written so as to treat ALL
citizens EQUALLY before the law.
>, "Joshua T. Heard" wrote:
> In our country, we have the freedom to discriminate. We discriminate every
> day we go into a supermarket to buy goods. An exception to this general
> rule has been made for things about people they cannot change, i.e. race, or
> things they should not be forced to change because it is a constitutional
> right, ie religion.
To discriminate, in the sense of choosing between various
possibilities, is a basic freedom. But discrimination becomes unlawful in a free society
consisting of persons of EQUAL RIGHTS, when that discrimination is used to DENY persons
their rights. It has nothing to do with what people can or cannot change. That is nonsense.
It has all to do with the natural rights that free human beings have, which are necessary for
existence in a society of free individuals.
> Homosexuals are demanding to be an exception to this
> rule based on the fact they engage in homosexual behavior.
Baloney. Homosexuals demand only the same rights to those things that other people enjoy, but
which are denied them simply because they are gay. The right to seek employment, public
accomodations -- all the things that ordinary citizens are entitled to. Good for nothing
employees should be discriminated against because they are good for nothing. But good
employees that are gay should NOT be discriminated against just because they are gay.
Employment is NOT a matter of arbitrary choice for an employer, although personal association
is. Why? Because employment is a function of society. Business could not exist without a
relationship to the rest of society. Employers have a social responsibility.
> However, I > should be able to discriminate against someone based on their
> behavior. For > instance, I like my friends because they do things that I do.
You can discriminate against anyone you choose for your own personal accomodation. You choose
your friends, your sex partners, the clubs and businesses you patronize. You can make those
choices based on the stupidest of prejudices. That's your personal right.
> If someone is > rude to me, or is a lazy worker, I should be able to not be forced to
> associate with them or hire them.
You are mixing the two. If someone is rude to you, you don't need to associate with them as a
matter of personal choice. If a person is a lazy worker, he is unfit for the job. But by
operating a business and hiring workers from the pool of citizens, you are participating in a
social function, and that entails certain social obligations, one of which is not to force your
personal prejudices onto society and its functional operations.
> Thus, if I have an objection to
> homosexual activity, I should not be forced to associate with those
engaging > in such behavior.
You don't need to associate with them on a PERSONAL basis, just like you don't need to
associate with red haired people on a personal basis, if you don't want to. But this society
has determined that your petty prejudices NOT become a part of public policy. Who you serve
in a restaurant, who you rent an apartment to, and who you hire, if you wish to participate in
the social function of business operation, cannot be done on the basis of prejudicial
discrimination unrelated to the business operation itself. An upscale restaurant owner does
not need to admit people without a coat and tie. An apartment manager does not need to admit
people whose financial resources do not allow them to pay the rent. An employer does not need
to hire someone who is unqualified for the position. Those are all related to legitimate
forms of
discrimination, necessary for proper business functioning. But race, sexual orientation, and
religion (except in certain rare instances) are not related to legitimate business needs.
If you dislike people of a certain race, for example, that is not a legitimate form of
discrimination. If you don't like the rules, then earn your livelihood some other way besides
by hiring people.