Daniel H Williams writes in an opinion letter, titled, “Choice doesn’t confer ‘minority’ status” to The Washington Times. Williams calls homosexuality a choice, and operates from that perspective, which will I believe remain the Homo-hater’s most used argument. Yet, he doesn’t describe his own choosing to be straight. The “choice” argument is a great one for the Homo-haters because even though research, shows that Sexual Orientation can not be changed, they are not big believers in Science.
I’d posit that the issue really isn’t choice or even “minority status” but rather upon what do people have a right to discriminate against others? For example, people choose to be of one Religious affiliation or another, or none at all. Should a Southern Baptist who owns a restaurant, have a right to refuse to serve a Catholic person? Or an Atheist? Should an employer have the right to fire a female employee because she chose to die her hair a certain color of brunette? Should I have the right to discriminate against Mr. Williams because I don’t agree with the choices he has made? The Gay Rights movement I believe demands that people be treated fairly and with Equality.
Williams equates being gay with “pedophilia, prostitution , and pornography,” and calls these:
Such “choices” are still unlawful, whether a crime is committed in one’s own home or at the local mall. The reason is not hard to find: Sexual activity is not constitutional right that society must protect. Civil rights leaders fought for a fundamental principle, not for a mere choice.
I especially love this conflation of issues! First, pornography is not unlawful. But bigger than that, the issue isn’t the regulation of Sexual Activity. Additionally, I wonder if Williams honestly believes that pedophilia is a “mere choice”? Does he believe that any human being might choose to be a pedophilia? Could Williams himself chose to be one? We know that rape, pedophilia and to a lessor degree, prostitution are not mere choices, but rather crimes that rely upon a power differential between the actors involved. We outlaw these behaviors to protect those who are victims to the power differential. This is in no way similar to individuals participating in consensual activity between partners.
And we do allow laws to differ in terms of regulating sexual behavior. In some states legal age differs, or regulates the marriage of first cousins. In other words, laws regarding sexual activity are not based upon moral concerns as William’s wishes to think.
The “fundamental principle” that Civil Rights leaders fought for is quite simple. No one group of individuals has a right to decide to discriminate against another identifiable group simply because they don’t approve or like that other group.
But this section deserves real attention:
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the homosexual rights campaign is that we are no longer permitted to regard homosexual behavior as a moral subject that deserves careful and deliberate consideration. The arguments over whether homosexuality is genetic or whether homosexual parenting harms or enables a child’s development are far from over. Instead, we are presented with the conversation-stopper called “homosexual rights.” By presenting the issue as one of minority rights, activists attempt to end the discussion rather than win it.
This one is just totally off the mark. Equal Rights doesn’t preclude Mr Williams believing that homosexuality is a moral subject. But it does demand that he may not push his morality onto others and discriminate based upon it. If he wants to believe that gay people will burn in Hell, he is welcome to that belief. Some feel alcohol consumption is a moral subject. Some believe that women cutting their hair is a moral subject. But we do not have the right to force our morality onto others.
The United States is a democracy where, the founding documents of our government demand “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and stop some from forcing their personal religious views onto others. As a culture, we regulate the “pursuit of happiness” where it infringes upon the rights of others. Equality before the Law is the discussion at hand, not morality, and we are winning the battle for Equality precisely because the issue is about fairness.
No argument can be made against Equality except one that is based upon some people forcing their religious views onto others. Gay people appear as “immoral” to some because they choose to believe that, but the majority of people in our culture are coming to see past the fear mongering, lies and misinformation. They are understanding that Sexual Orientation isn’t about choice or preference, but it an inherent trait we are born with, no matter if Mr Williams wants to believe it or not.
via Choice doesn’t confer ‘minority’ status – Washington Times.