.. eads to coercion and exploitation (969). Unlike pedophillia, a homosexual act is consent between two adults, no harm to others is done and with our bodies we are free to do whatever we please. Therefore, there is no point to call it illegal. Moreover, discrimination against people of different sexual orientation will be a violation of the constitution, which guarantees common rights for everybody. Thus, despite our own preference we have neither moral nor legal right to discriminate against them.
As for disapproval of different religions of homosexuality, everyone should have the freedom to go to hell as one wants, as Udo Schuklenk and Tony Riley put it quoting Enlgelhardt (602). The last question that is important to discuss: Should homosexuals be a protected minority? Like any other minority homosexuals deserve the protection by any government and public institution. An absence of protection against discrimination will result in more violence and injustice. For a example, a gay who was beaten and harassed may not seek justice in court because by doing so he puts himself and his loved one in the open position for further discrimination. Most homosexuals prefer not to engage themselves in such procedures for fear of losing more.
Therefore, while heterosexuals feel free victimize them in different ways, homosexuals can not even exercise the rights given them by law. Some may argue that homosexuals themselves often cause trouble. Gay activists harass doctors, disrupt public meetings, and scream self-righteously about their rage(Hamill 534). It is hard to dismiss this point, but by denying homosexuals their rights one can not stop violence. Only by accepting them into the society on the same terms as we accept heterosexuals will give us a chance to stop the escalating rage from both sides.
Other opponents of homosexuality argue that granting gays and lesbians the same protection under law that is granted to other minorities is to give them special privileges. But homosexuals do not ask for special privileges. They want the same rights as heterosexuals the right to have a job they want and be treated according to their skills and performance at work, but not by the fact that they share their bedrooms with the same-sex partners. They want to live in the house they like and be judged according to their action, but not for who they are. They want the same benefits from their employers and insurance companies as heterosexuals have. Finally, they want to get married and have children, but those basic human choices cause the main disagreement among heterosexuals. As was mentioned above, there are many families with homosexual members.
Some parents are disappointed that their child will never be married and they will never have grandchildren, but most of those parents still want to see their children happy and hope that they will find somebody to love and share their life. Why should not society find it possible to share the same maturity. Moreover, in the wake of AIDs encouraging gay monogamy is simply rational public policy. However, according to Washington Post poll 70 percent of Americans oppose same-sex marriage, yet only 53 percent oppose homosexual relationship between consenting adults (Francoure 246). Some will argue that one of the familys function is it conceive and raise children.
But today sex is not the only way to have a child. It can be conceived in vitro through sperm and eggs donors or by surrogate mother, and there is always such option as adoption. In addition, the wide spread opinion that homosexuals will raise children who also will be homosexuals has no scientific evidence. To the contrary, some studies show that the sexuality of a child is determined very early, perhaps at conception and it is very unlikely that parents can have influence on his or her sexual orientation. As one can see, there is no justification to deny homosexuals their rights.
In addition, if there is no other way we can provide gays and lesbians with those rights without making them a privileged group this is not their fault. Since homosexuals often are the subject of harassment, violence, mistreatment, discrimination, or illness for no fault of their own we should chose the position which will allow them to have the same rights as heterosexuals do. As science and technology moves forward, we easily accept changes in the outside world, and yet we are reluctant to leave our beliefs and prejudices behind. I hope that people are becoming smarter not only in developing sophisticated methods, producing and operating complex devices, but also in understanding other human beings. It is time to abandon our ancient prejudice about homosexuality and start think reasonably.
We have to acknowledge the scientific fact that being a gay is not a decease, not a curse, not an immoral act, not a preference, but just another type of sexuality. Gays are a permanent minority and arent likely to go away. So, instead of burdening ourselves with unnecessary tension by rejecting them, we have to adjust our apprehension, accept them for who there are and treat them fairly. By doing so we will reduce violence, hate crime and stress. Is it not a good reason to overcome the last of our prejudices? Bibliography Francoeur, Robert T. Should Society Recognize Gay Marriages? Taking sides: Clashing Views on controversial Issues. Issues in Human Sexuality. 4th Ed.
Stephen Satris: The Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc, Guilford,1994:246-247. Geraci, Joseph and DonaldH. Mader. Pedophillia. Encyclopedia of Homosexuality Ed. Wayne R Dynes.
Garland Publishing, Inc , New York, 1990: v2, 964-970. Hamill, Pete. Confessions of a Heterosexual. The Aims of Argument. A Rhetoric and Reader.
2nd Ed. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Chanell: Mayfield Publishing, Mountain View, California,1998: 531-536. Mohr, Richard D.
Gay Basics: Some Questions, Facts, and Values. Taking sides: Clashing Views on controversial Issues. Moral Issues. 4th Ed. Stephen Satris: The Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc, Guilford,1994:186-194. Nickel, Jeffrey.
Everybodys Threatened by Homophobia. The Aims of Argument. A Rhetoric and Reader.2nd Ed. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E.
Chanell: Mayfield Publishing, Mountain View, California, 1998:527-530. Schuklenk,Udo and Tony Riley. Homosexuality, Social Attitudes Toward. Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics. Editor-in -Chief Ruth Chadwick.
Academic Press: San Diego, 1998: v2, 597-603. Ulanowsky, Carole. The Family. Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics. Editor-in-Chief Ruth Chadwick. Academic Press: San Diego, 1998: v2,.