passing of the civil rights protection of homosexuals. This paper presents the views and reasons of the people who oppose the passing of this act. This paper then demonstrates the importance of the passing of this act and how it would benefit the society at large. The paper also highlights certain quotes to support its claim.
Civil Rights Protection of Homosexuals Human beings claim to represent a society that is not only civilized but also just in its ways. When we as humans can fight for animal's rights, than we can certainly work for the civil rights protection of the homosexuals, who still belong to the category of human beings. Discrimination on the basis of race, class and sexual orientation must be eliminated as much as possible. Man, a creature of God has not been given the liberty to judge between right and wrong. As the bible has said, "There is none righteous. Only God is righteous. To make it to heaven we must have His righteousness, which we obtain through Jesus Christ" (Homosexual Agenda). Hence, we are no body to debase homosexuals on the basis of sexual orientation. They represent a class that is both suppressed and oppressed. According to Dan Lewerenze, "The question of gay rights rests heavily on the nature of homosexuality. If sexuality is an orientation, determined biologically from birth, many are willing to make concessions. If sexuality is a preference, then any guarantee of protection would constitute special rights that the rest of society does not enjoy" (Dan Lewerenze, Gays Deserve Their Civil Rights). Hence, the answer of civil rights protection should not be based on sexual orientation and homosexuals like all the other humans should be given civil rights protection. Civil rights protection of the homosexual has gained much momentum over the years. The United States Supreme Court in its Bill of Rights declared that sexuality is an indispensable component of self-definition and the state has no right to pervade someone's home privacy. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is also a violation of the 14th Amendment. Despite everything, homosexuals still suffer as far as employment, housing facilities and rights are concerned. According to Darren Huchinson, The issue of gay and lesbian legal equality remains unresolved and highly contested.
Despite the vigorous efforts of gay and lesbian activists and theorists and the recent, apparent broadening of public support for protecting gays and lesbians in formal civil rights structures, the legal status of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered individuals remains largely Unequal and unprotected (Darren Huchinson, Gay rights For Gay Whites?: Race, Sexual Identity, And Equal Protection Discourse).
It is a great possibility that the problem of the gay and lesbian inequality will eventually result in a host of social, legal, political and ideological variables. People fear that by providing civil rights to gays and lesbians, they might encourage this sexual orientation to augment. Adversaries of civil rights protection for the homosexuals are accumulating money and funds and collecting signatures in an hope to get the authorities to bans gay rights on statewide ballots next year in California, Florida, Idaho, Oregon and Michigan among other states. Anti-gay rights bills currently proposed in the Rhode Island legislature would bar civil rights protection solely in response to his or her behavior. In Oregon, in addition to a 1994 statewide ballot measure, the Oregon Citizen Alliance is working to get anti-gay rights measures on ballots in more than 30 county and municipal elections this year. Colorado voters decided in November to repeal gay rights ordinances and ban any such laws. The matter is being challenged before the Colorado Supreme Court (St. Paul, Minn.). Hence, till now a great debate regarding civil right protection of the homosexuals still exist. Protestors are tirelessly working to prevent any such bill from being pass that would advocate the protection rights of the gays and lesbians. The question that now remain for many people to answer is, is human behavior the right criteria for judging a person? And is protection of a person based upon sexual orientation? Neither people nor governments or corporations have any right to decide about sexual preferences. Homosexuals should be treated as respected members of the society, as they play a role in it. Giving homosexuals, civil right protection would only reduce sexually oriented discrimination and would abate hate crimes against them. Tony Marco in his article said, Under careful analysis, the notion that federal, state and local governments should award ethnic or protected class status on the basis of divergent physical behavior or alleged desire alone -- even if that behavior or alleged desire is shared by many, even though these individuals find that behavior or fantasy orientation highly pleasurable and difficult or impossible to change -- is revealed to be, as 1984 author George
Orwell once wrote, an idea so preposterous that only an intellectual could believe it. In fact any true analysis of this premise must inevitably end in recognition of its absurdity (Tony Marco, Gay Extremists' Claim To Protected Class Status For Shared Sexual Behavior Or Desire Is Based On Unsound Reasoning). Science has failed to discover the sexual orientation of a baby at the time of birth. Hence, a person can not be determined as a homosexual at the time of his/her birth. Thus all are equal human beings at the time of their birth and should be protected in every way possible. Tony Marco asks his readers the following questions as far as different behavior is concern. On grounds this tenuous, why not grant protected status to other alleged sharers or cravers of pleasurable physical behaviors? Why not protected status for beer drinkers, who share a pleasurable, sometimes dangerous, physical behavior? Or smokers, whose behavior is, in fact, discriminated against by many who don't share it? Or football fans, who evidence a distinct subculture built around their shared spectating behavior? Or prostitutes, who share the practice of "divergent" sexual behavior for profit? Or anyone merely claiming a desire to engage in these behaviors? (Tony Marco, Gay Extremists' Claim To Protected Class Status For Shared Sexual Behavior Or Desire Is Based On Unsound Reasoning).
Hence, it is wrong to judge someone on his/her sexual behavior. There are a number of married people who commit adultery and thus exhibit a different sexual behavior. Hence, just like homosexuals these people too, should also not be given civil rights protection. But our society is blind towards this factor and completely negates it. If there never has been an issue regarding the civil rights protection of people who commit adultery then why should there exist a case regarding the homosexuals? Dr. David Willis said, "To say that the homosexual rights agenda should be legally immune from criticism under gay rights laws is, to subvert the essential nature of civil rights legislation and, indeed to provide 'special status for only one type of behavior" (Tony Marco, Gay Extremists' Claim To Protected Class Status For Shared Sexual Behavior Or Desire Is Based On Unsound Reasoning). A research study conducted by The New England Journal of Medicine presented statistical evidence regarding left handed people. Left-handed individuals live an average of nine years less than right-handed people. Left-handers are forced to endure lifetimes as objects of epithets like southpaw and Lefty. Left-wing is a term with highly sinister connotations. The word sinister itself derives from a Latin word for left-handedness. Left-handed people may well outnumber homosexuals in our society. Does it follow that society should feel compelled to make left-handers a specially protected class? Or that left-handers should launch a left- handers' liberation movement? (Tony Marco, Gay Extremists' Claim To Protected Class Status For Shared Sexual Behavior Or Desire Is Based On Unsound Reasoning). Therefore people who work against the passing of homosexual's civil rights protection are not only…