14th June 2003, 3:33 AM
No, ABF, that's not quite right.
There are two main arguments for equal rights: one f the equates homosexuality with race, the other equates homosexuality with religion.
The first one is obvious. If homosexuality is as controlled as race by genetics, it is not just to decriminate against these people.
The second one states that even if homosexuality is as much of a choice as religion, what makes it fair to descriminate based upon homosexuality but not religion?
Weltall, in his most moderate moments, is arguing that because there is no evidence for a gay gene, homosexuals should not have special rights. If, by special rights, he means, "rights that heterosexual people do not have," I agree with him. If he defines special rights as rights that heterosexual people take for granted (sex, military service, civil union), I disagree with him.
Some people equate homosexuality to murder. It's okay to have impulses, as long as you don't act on them. This comes from a belief that some actions are inherently wrong. This usually comes from the Bible. In this code, murder (Thou shalt not kill) and homosexuality (Thou shalt not lie with another man as you would a woman) are inherently wrong. I have to say I completely respect the opinions of these people. My opinion is no better than theirs in the context of personal discussion. The problem I have is when this religious code is applied to the people of a nation which was founded on the belief that the values of the church and the values of the state must be separate. The "Bible" of the United States is the US Constitution.
My understanding of the Constitution is that you have the right to do anything you desire unless it conflicts with a higher right of another person/group of people. You have the right to move about in free space as you wish...until your fist strikes another person. In this case, the right of physical integrity (protection from assault) is held higher than the right of free movement. Many people disagree with this interpretation of the Constitution, but I find that it gives a much more universal understanding of morals.
There are two main arguments for equal rights: one f the equates homosexuality with race, the other equates homosexuality with religion.
The first one is obvious. If homosexuality is as controlled as race by genetics, it is not just to decriminate against these people.
The second one states that even if homosexuality is as much of a choice as religion, what makes it fair to descriminate based upon homosexuality but not religion?
Weltall, in his most moderate moments, is arguing that because there is no evidence for a gay gene, homosexuals should not have special rights. If, by special rights, he means, "rights that heterosexual people do not have," I agree with him. If he defines special rights as rights that heterosexual people take for granted (sex, military service, civil union), I disagree with him.
Some people equate homosexuality to murder. It's okay to have impulses, as long as you don't act on them. This comes from a belief that some actions are inherently wrong. This usually comes from the Bible. In this code, murder (Thou shalt not kill) and homosexuality (Thou shalt not lie with another man as you would a woman) are inherently wrong. I have to say I completely respect the opinions of these people. My opinion is no better than theirs in the context of personal discussion. The problem I have is when this religious code is applied to the people of a nation which was founded on the belief that the values of the church and the values of the state must be separate. The "Bible" of the United States is the US Constitution.
My understanding of the Constitution is that you have the right to do anything you desire unless it conflicts with a higher right of another person/group of people. You have the right to move about in free space as you wish...until your fist strikes another person. In this case, the right of physical integrity (protection from assault) is held higher than the right of free movement. Many people disagree with this interpretation of the Constitution, but I find that it gives a much more universal understanding of morals.