Leadership U. EasyGift

Academics
Humanities
Social Sciences
Sciences
Theology
Academic Integration
Faculty Offices

Departments
Current Issues
Publications
Conferences/Events
Apologetics
Ministry Tools
Bible Studies
What's New

Special Interest
Past Features
Other Sites
Help LU
About LU
Privacy Policy
Link to LU
Feedback

Navigation
Site Map
Site Index
Advanced Search
Browsing Help
LU Home


LU Updates
Receive
LU-Announce

subscribe

 
     
ConversationsResource Center

Special Class Protections for Self-Alleged Gays: A Question of "Orientation" and Consequences

A public policy analysis
by Tony Marco

Copyright Tony Marco, 1991-1994, all rights reserved


Previous | Table of Contents | Next


"Innateness" Alone No Compelling Reason To Award Special Protected Class Status

Next, it is absurd to say that society has no right to withhold special class protection from certain behaviors or phenomena even if they are "innate" or occur frequently in nature. Again, the Supreme Court's above-cited decision in "Bowers vs. Hardwick" clearly grants sovereign States the right to determine which behaviors it may proscribe as "immoral" or "unacceptable."

The common-sense reasons for this are obvious. Many "natural" or possibly "innate" behaviors of both animals and human beings remain unprotected or strictly controlled by society. The striking behavior of poisonous snakes is perfectly natural. Do we argue that "because snakebites are natural" people ought to welcome and take no steps to protect themselves from venomous vipers?

Some students of human behavior theorize that criminals may be born with faulty chromosome structures. Various types of habitual criminals would seem to logically qualify for special, protected status under strict "shared behavior" criteria. Should we immediately award ethnic status and legal protection to sociopaths simply because their behavior may be the product of twisted genes? Should an allegedly inborn propensity to ill temper confer on a bully the "right" to intimidate and inflict violence on his neighbors?

Some might conceivably argue that the cannibalistic behavior of notorious murderer Jeffrey Dahmer was somehow genetically inspired. Simply because such "divergent" behavior may be "natural" or innate, should society favor special advantages and protected class status for cannibal-murderers? AIDS, and other dreaded diseases, are "natural" phenomena. Does it follow that society should encourage these diseases to proliferate?

Urination and defecation are obviously natural behaviors, engaged in by all human beings. Does it follow that in a civilized society, public performance of these functions, with genitalia exposed, should be a protected "civil right"?

All of the above-mentioned innate or "natural" shared behaviors or phenomena have better grounds than homosexuality, according to the logic (or illogic) asserted by "gay rights" advocates, to be granted special protected class status. Yet rational people don't seriously suggest we grant these behaviors and phenomena ethnic status or special class protection. Thus, would it not be patently ridiculous to award ethnic status and special privileges solely on the unexamined basis of how some people claim they desire to gratify their sexual appetites?


Previous | Table of Contents | Next

- Email this to a friend


copyright © 1995-2008 Leadership U. All rights reserved.
Updated: 13 July 2002