We need another word that has some of the meaning of "discrimination" but without the heavy baggage of sounding like an irrational, thoughtless, and bigoted reaction. In this sense, yes, why shouldn't we discriminate against homosexuals ? That is, deny that they have any rights reserved for non-psychopaths? Since when it is rational or even sane to give equal rights to psychopaths? This is the issue, not something less. Sure, there is a moral issue to be made but the crux of the matter is that homosexuality is a mental illness. Get this through your head. As soon as you do, then the entire "civil rights" case falls to the ground as so much absurdity without any merit. Unconvinced that homosexuality is a mental illness? There would be no point in even talking to you unless you have read the actual argument that it is precisely that -and damned few people have ever done so. Which is why I made available a synopsis of this arguments, albeit in some detail, under the title, "America's Lost World." It is free, no charge, and was e-mailed to everyone at the RC list. Is that too costly for you? For sure it is self-serving to say so, but there simply isn't a better, more pointed, more thorough, more hard hitting statement of the argument to make against homosexuals anywhere else. In short, there are damned good reasons to "discriminate" against homosexuals. And to criticize them in no uncertain terms. Billy ========================================= SLATE May 6 2014 9:36 AM
Opponents of same-sex marriage want a broader right to discriminate against gay couples. By _William Saletan_ (http://www.slate.com/authors.william_saletan.html) Opponents of same-sex marriage are asking for federal protection. They say their beliefs are rational and should be respected, by law, under the principle of freedom of conscience. They’ve built their case around photographers, florists, and other entrepreneurs who _don’t want to participate in same-sex weddings_ (http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/07/gay_marriage_and_religious_freedom_don_t_stereotype_the_christian_wedding.html) . But the protection these advocates seek is much broader. It would guarantee the right of any citizen to withhold any service that might countenance a same-sex relationship What they’re defending, in other words, isn’t a position on the definition of marriage. It’s a position against open homosexuality. It’s anti-gay. The difference becomes clear when you read the opponents’ arguments and their legislation. On Monday two intellectual leaders of the resistance, Ryan Anderson and Robert George, published an _essay_ (http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2014/05/05/freedom_to_marry__dissent_rightly_understood.html) defending their ideas. In it they use the word “marriage” 56 times, implying that the debate is only about whether same-sex relationships must be acknowledged as marriages. In reality, however, they go further: For years, a central argument of those in favor of same-sex marriage has been that all Americans should be free to live as they choose. But does that freedom require the government to coerce people, against their consciences, into participating in or facilitating celebrations of same-sex relationships? In a _growing number of incidents_ (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/protecting-religious-liberty-in-the-state-marriage-debate) , the redefinition of marriage and state policies adding sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) to the lists of protected classes under non-discrimination statutes have led to the intolerance and intimidation of citizens who believe that marriage unites a man and a woman and that sexual relations are properly reserved for marriage. Notice the language. Participating in or facilitating celebrations of same-sex relationships. Sexual relations are properly reserved for marriage. That language wouldn’t just protect a photographer’s right not to participate in a same-sex wedding. It would protect his right to refuse to photograph a same-sex couple at all. Any picture of the couple expressing romantic love could be construed as celebration. And when you pair a heterosexual definition of marriage with rejection of unmarried sexual relations, you create a no-win situation for gay couples. They can’t get married, and because they’re unmarried, they can’t have a sexual relationship. A photographer, by this logic, can refuse to take any picture of them as a couple. Five paragraphs later, the authors reinforce this point: While Americans are free to live as they choose, no one should be compelled against conscience to facilitate a same-sex sexual bond. Opposing such sexual partnerships on conscientious moral grounds is not the equivalent of racism. Bond. Partnership. That’s clear license to withhold commercial services from any same-sex couple, regardless of whether they’re getting married. Click the link in the passage quoted above (“_growing number of incidents_ (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/protecting-religious-libert y-in-the-state-marriage-debate) ”), and you’ll be taken from the essay to a _Heritage Foundation briefing paper_ (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/protecting-religious-liberty-in-the-state-marriage-debate) by Anderson and another colleague, posted four weeks ago. The paper uses the same language: Policy should prohibit the government from discriminating against any individual or group, whether nonprofit or for-profit, based on their beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and woman or that sexual relations are reserved for marriage. The government should be prohibited from discriminating against such groups or individuals in tax policy, employment, licensing, accreditation, or contracting. … In a nation founded on religious freedom, government should not attempt to coerce any citizen, association, or business into celebrating same-sex relationships. Again, that’s a no-win policy for same-sex partners. A photographer can refuse to take a picture marking the one-year anniversary of their relationship. A hotel can refuse to let them share a room, on the grounds that gays can ’t marry and that “sexual relations are reserved for marriage.” The briefing paper calls for passage of the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act, introduced in the _House_ (http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3133) and _Senate_ (http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1808) late last year. More than _100 House members_ (http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3133/cosponsors) are co-sponsoring the House bill; _17 senators_ (http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1808/cosponsors) are co-sponsoring the Senate bill. Here’s the _House version_ (http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3133/text) : The Federal Government shall not take an adverse action against a person, on the basis that such person acts in accordance with a religious belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage. And here’s the _Senate version_ (http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1808/text) : Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the Federal Government shall not take an adverse action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person acts in accordance with a religious belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage. Both versions include the crucial clause: or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage. The phrase “such a marriage” conveys that a hotel can refuse to let even a legally married gay couple share a room, because their marriage is the wrong kind of marriage. Refusing services for a gay relationship or partnership is fundamentally different from refusing services for a gay marriage. First, it lacks the rational basis that George and Anderson presented in their book, _What Is Marriage?_ (http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225?tag=slatmaga-20) The book articulates a theory of marriage based on procreation and complementarity. I’ve _defended this argument as rational_ (http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/18/gay_marriage_bigotry_and_religious_free dom_don_t_shut_down_the_debate_win.html) , though flawed. But the argument doesn’t cover nonmarital same-sex relationships. Why is it rational to oppose such relationships? Why is refusal to photograph a same-sex couple more defensible than refusal to photograph an interracial couple? Second, rejection of same-sex relationships seems, on its face, inhumane. Unless you think most homosexuals can be converted to heterosexuality—and even among conservative Christians, that belief is _dwindling fast_ (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/05/antigay_religion_h ow_catholics_and_evangelicals_are_coming_to_accept_same.html) —you’re asking gay people, in effect, _never to express or receive romantic love_ (http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/11/gay_marriage_photographer_case_when_ does_religious_freedom_become_anti_gay.html) . Can you imagine being sentenced to a lifetime of such desolation? For an involuntary, immutable characteristic? I’ve defended people such as George and Anderson _against casual analogies between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage_ (http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/12/homosexuality_and_racism_why_gay_marriage_and_interra cial_marriage_are_different.html) . But that defense applies only if your concern is the definition of marriage. If you want to argue that marriage is historically procreative, and that for this reason a same-sex relationship can’t be a “marriage,” I’m willing to listen. But you’d better explain how you’re going to let gay people live decent lives and receive the honors and benefits we bestow for lifetime commitments. Peter Berkowitz, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, passes that test in _his recent essay_ (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/23/gay-marriage_backers_admirably_o pen_to_dissent_122355.html) on this question. “Arguments against gay marriage,” he writes, don’t “preclude the recognition of civil unions that recognize the dignity of gay couples” and guarantee joint property rights. If, however, your position is that same-sex couples should be _categorically ineligible_ (http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2453_01_0000.pdf) for such honors and benefits, or that any expression of same-sex love is immoral, then I’m hard-pressed to understand, in light of the general immutability of sexual orientation, how your view is rationally defensible. And I don’t see why you should be legally entitled to refuse services based on homosexuality, any more than you could based on race. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
