Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Homosexuality and Public Policy

The so-called Gay Rights movement exhausts me. Don't get wrong, all individuals are entitled to equal protection under the law. I would get very unhappy if I heard any individual citizens were denied a job, the right to assemble or to vote because of who they were, their phenotype. Equal protection is very reasonable and should be (and is) the law.

But that isn't enough. Many homosexuals want special protections and exemptions, because of who they are. Sorry folks, but this is as un-American as it gets. Allow me to be more specific.

Gays in the US military was a Clinton bugaboo. Let's be honest here; the military excuses from service those who have flat feet, color-blindness and other minor handicaps, not to mention those with more major ones. You cannot be in the military if you do not have a high school diploma or now a GED. And now you cannot admit you are gay. The military leaders set the policies they believe will help them succeed. The President should heed their advice and we the people should trust them. This is not a fairness or rights issue; there is no right to serve in the military. HOWEVER, this is really an unwise policy, as it limits the candidate pool, and in the event of a draft, God forbid!, gives an excuse to those who would rather not serve. (There is no objective gay test I have ever heard of.) I believe a better policy is to allow homosexuals to serve only in co-ed units. If the leaders have decided that integrating the sexes is worth the risk of inappropriate (heterosexual) relations for these units, then the risk is no greater than that for homosexuals. At the end of the day, this issue rates a 3 of 10 on the how-important-is-this meter.

But the most important gay rights issue is gay unions. This idea is so silly and full of logical holes, it is a shame some people even talk about it, but here we are. The main legal reason against consideration is that marriage is not a right; the public policy reasons are related to the success of the "traditional" family unit, where the male-female couple accept the obligations of marriage for the benefit of the children born to them.

Marriage is not a right. Only individuals have rights; groups only have the rights of their constituent members. A married couple does not have special rights, simply because they are married. No, what the gay marriage promoters want is the same social benefits conferred to married couples. Insurance coverage, tax breaks, and the privilege to adopt are amongst these. These benefits though are not the reason for the acceptance of marriage as public policy; the reason is to promote the family unit. Let's face it, we have a huge problem with marriage abuse as it is with gold-digging and an obnoxious divorce rate for couples whose children are still young. These are really problems for our society. We should not extend the institution or create any facsimile thereof for homosexuals, who are biologically dysfunctional with regards to sexual attraction, to further abuse the social construct that is marriage.

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

Homosexuality as we know it

The latest scandal in the news about U.S. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) raises up the social issues around homosexuality once again. We as a society have struggled with ethical and moral questions of public policy regarding homosexuals. Maybe a directed review of what we know and don't know might help shed some light on things.

First I will risk being labeled a homophobe by making an absolutely correct statement. Homosexuality in a biological sense is dysfunctional. Humans have multiple systems to successfully exist as a species, including digestive, respiratory, skeletal, muscular and of course reproductive. We do not understand everything there is to know about sexual desire, but I can say one thing for certain. Without heterosexual attraction, most mammalian species, including and especially us, would face extinction. In other words if everyone is strictly gay, then there would be no children. So having heterosexuality is a necessary thing for perpetuation of our species and our society.

How and in what specific ways are we programmed with sexual attraction? I have never seen a complete explanation. I just knew one day in my early years that those of the opposite sex were more interesting to me than those of my own. What causes homosexual attraction? I cannot say personally, but I imagine it is the same mechanisms where something is just working differently. I do believe one is born with a certain predisposed sexuality, but that life experiences and development have an impact on our sexual identity after puberty.

What does this tell us? Homosexuals are most likely born, not made. Have you ever heard the rhetorical question "Why would anyone choose it?" This supports the born not made theory.

Still not convinced that homosexuality is dysfunctional? Suppose there was a shot you give to every pregnant woman that is perfectly safe and would guarantee a heterosexual child. How many heterosexual couples would pass on that? Few if any would pass. The human race would live on but those born homosexual would eventually die off. Would this be bad? There are some ethical concerns here, but it certainly shows the point.

Does this make it okay to discriminate against gay people for jobs? Of course not (unless there is a BFOQ). Does this change the fact that we should trust our military leaders to tell us how they would handle recruitment?