Freedom of religion (rather than civil rights) as a "template" for gay rights?

[Martinus]

Ok, first of all, a disclaimer: this is a gay thread. So if your contribution to this thread is going to consist of pointing out how I start gay threads etc., go somewhere else; you don't have to read it.

Having said that, I have been thinking a lot lately how using the American civil rights or women's rights struggle as a sort of "template" or "blueprint" for arguing in favour of gay rights is not exactly useful, especially as religious rights (freedom of religion) seem to be a much better analogy to use. Of course it is not a perfect metaphor but think about it:

- both have a mixed biologically-cultural genesis (we are not sure of the biological origins, but we know that both a tendency to be religious and a tendency to be of a non-heterosexual orientation has some biological basis; but at the same time there is also a recognized cultural element; so it is both nature and nurture);

- the trait is discrete - it is not as immediately visible as it is in the case with race or sex, for example; and it can cut across races, families and ethnicities;

- people seem to have it in various degrees (some people stay one religion for life; some convert), and there is a certain level of fluidity - but despite it being able to change in some circumstances, it is not technically a "choice" - one cannot suddenly choose, by sheer will, to believe in God or convert to another religion;

- unlike the case with race or sex, discrimination is based more on a prohibition against certain practices connected with who you are, than just 'being' who you are - and from the perspective of another group, such practices seem often bizarre, immoral and sinful - yet we recognise that people who "are" something but are unable to engage in practices that are connected with that something are unhappy and it is evil to deny them a right to do so, unless they harm others;

- from the perspective of the society as a whole, it would probably make more sense to have everybody be of the same dominant religion or to be heterosexual - yet we recognize the need to give them all the same right to exist; and

- there are actually social and cultural differences between these groups (unlike, say, between races) which means that again technically, depending on your point of view, you could find one preferable over another from the point of view of the public interest - yet we recognize the need to treat all of them equally.

What do you think?

There is of course an extra bonus of being able to use it nicely to disarm religious people.

I mean, from the point of view of a devout Christian, surely a gay couple raising their son gay (assuming there was a casual link at all) would be putting their son's soul in much less of a danger than a Muslim straight couple raising their son Muslim, no?

[The Brain]

Discrete or discreet?

[Martinus]

Discrete or discreet?

I always confuse the two. 

Edit: I guess both usage work for what I was saying, but I meant "discreet".

[Neil]

To equate an abomination like homosexuality with the worship of god is offensive.

[DontSayBanana]

You're clouding the issue, Marti.  The question is not which guaranteed right would most closely model homosexuality; the question is whether sexual orientation, irrespective of origin, is such a fundamental defining trait of an individual that it should be held to be a protected class as race and gender are.

[Strix]

I, for one, accept Martinus as our new Gay Pope Overlord! 

[CountDeMoney]

We need to add a specific gay icon for the topic title column on the front page to the message board, so Marty can have his little queerisms. Question marks and exclamation points just aren't going to cut it.  Let's use, like, a pink triangle, or a smiley with a cock in its face.

[Ed Anger]

We need to add a specific gay icon for the topic title column on the front page to the message board, so Marty can have his little queerisms. Question marks and exclamation points just aren't going to cut it.  Let's use, like, a pink triangle, or a smiley with a cock in its face.

Or a tiny, tiny foot.

[Syt]

[Syt]

In 20x20:

[CountDeMoney]

[Grallon]

How about this one?

[Faeelin]

Many of these arguments also apply to racial minorities, though.

[Grallon]

As for the main topic I'll say what I usually say to blacks who bemoan racism;  you don't want to be discriminated against because you're black?  Stop being black! 

In other words, stop defining yourself by that one characteristic and you'll see that most people will stop seeing you as just that.  And when you stop insisting on your difference their justifications to deny you certain rights based on that difference will crumble.

It has worked for me all my life. I've always had it known I am homosexual everywhere I go - as matter of factly as possible.  At work everyone know I'm a devout homophile and I never got any grief.   The technique is called drowning the fish. 

What too many homosexuals fail to understand is that it's not being 'gay' (how I despise that label!) that turns most straight people (especially guys) off - it's being ashamed of it.  It's appearing vulnerable because of it.  People hate weakness far more than they hate this or that difference and many will latch on to the merest hint of such weakness to hammer on it more or less subtly.




G.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't see what changing the analogy accomplishes.