Difference between revisions of "Homosexual rights advocacy"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Revert to last version by Chipmonker)
m
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 27: Line 27:
  
 
== Opposition to Gay Rights ==
 
== Opposition to Gay Rights ==
Polls consistently reveal that a clear majority <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031800484.html | Clinton, Obama Slow to Respond to Questions on Homosexuality] Washington Post, March 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/963906/posts| New poll shows Americans oppose gay civil unions 58%-37%] Washington Post, August 18, 2003</ref> of people disapprove of homosexuality, or at least consider it less than ideal, and prefer that public policy does not encourage it. They also believe that accepting homosexuality would require the loss of rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and traditional [[marriage]].{{fact}}
+
Polls consistently reveal that a clear majority <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031800484.html | Clinton, Obama Slow to Respond to Questions on Homosexuality] Washington Post, March 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/963906/posts| New poll shows Americans oppose gay civil unions 58%-37%] Washington Post, August 18, 2003</ref> of people disapprove of homosexuality, or at least consider it less than ideal, and prefer that public policy does not encourage it. They also believe that accepting homosexuality would require the loss of rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and traditional [[marriage]].<ref>Traditional Values Coalition - [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2963 Homosexual Marriage In Canada Killing Free Speech]</ref>
 
+
 
Conservatives criticize attempts by gay rights activists to prohibit any statements which are critical of homosexuality, such as the idea that it is "unnatural" or "sinful", using [[hate crime]]s statutes and anti-[[discrimination]] laws.
 
Conservatives criticize attempts by gay rights activists to prohibit any statements which are critical of homosexuality, such as the idea that it is "unnatural" or "sinful", using [[hate crime]]s statutes and anti-[[discrimination]] laws.
  

Revision as of 18:55, 1 January 2008

The gay rights movement seeks to elevate homosexuality to the same level of social and political respectability as heterosexual relationships. Although the Bible prohibits homosexual acts, activists point out that such prohibitions are found in the old testament among a variety of outdated and ignored guidelines. For example, it is no longer acceptable to treat one's wife or children as property; clearly Christianity has evolved beyond the rules that bound it thousands of years ago. Additionally, the levels of STI's in the heterosexual population has become equal to that in the homosexual population. It can no longer be claimed that gay sex poses a greater health risk than any other form of intercourse.

With arguments against homosexuality largely dispelled, the gay rights movement seeks to remove the stigma of sexual perversion from homosexuality by arguing that either,

  1. Homosexuality is an immutable trait, and discriminating against immutable traits is wrong (cf. race discrimination), or,
  2. Homosexuality, if not immutable, is highly correlated with personality, and discriminating against such deeply rooted notions of self is wrong, as well (cf. religious intolerance).


History

As Amazon.com said in a review of a book of Harry Hay's writings, he "is the acknowledged father…of the modern gay liberation movement." As a Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) organizer, he turned out "essays, position papers, critical studies, and manifestos concerning what it means to be gay in the world." [1]

The first step Hay took in organizing the gay rights movement was to recommend to the CPUSA that he be expelled. In light of his years 18 years of service to the party [2] they released him as “a security risk but a life-long friend of the people.” The early leadership of the Foundation shaped the organization to reflect the cell structure of the Communist Party, in which "secrecy, hierarchical structures, and centralized leadership predominated." [3] Hay and his fellow gay rights activists began circulating the USSR and the East European Communist parties sponsored anti-war Stockholm Peace petition against the Korean War [4] at a gay beach in Los Angeles. The first months pro­duced hundreds of members.

Amid growing public focus on gays and lesbians, 91 homosexuals were found to be employed in the U.S. State Department. Congressional investigators discovered homosexuals employed in 36 of 53 branches of Government, as well as in the armed forces. Between Jan. 1, 1947 and April 1950, 4,954 cases had come to light among some three and a half million people in Government service. Most were in the armed services. 574 cases were found involving civilian Government employees; in all the other cases the accused had either quit, been cleared or fired. The investigators found the greatest batch of civilian cases—143—in the U.S. State Department. State had cleared or gotten rid of all but a dozen whose cases were still pending. The Veterans Administration was found to have 101 cases. Others included the Atomic Energy Commission, 8; EGA, 27; Congress' legislative agencies (Library of Congress, congressional employees, etc.), 19. One Senator remarked, "It follows that if blackmailers can extort money from a homosexual under threat of disclosure, espionage agents can use the same type of pressure to extort confidential information." [5]

The Human Rights Campaign referred to Hay as "founder and architect of the modern movement for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights" and "Harry was one of the first to realize that the dream of equality for our community could be attained through visibility and activism". [6] Hay not only promoted homosexual rights, he actively campaigned for the "rights" of pedophiles. The Boston Phoenix noted that nowhere was this more evident than in Hay's persistent support of the right of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, NAMBLA, to march in gay-pride parades. [7] NAMBLA maintains a website with a body of Hay's work and a tribute to Harry Hay on its homepage. The Human Rights Campaign and other gay rights organizations, while revering Hay for his contributions to gay rights, do not support NAMBLA or communism.

In 2006, Catholic Charities of Boston closed their adoption program after more than a century of finding homes for orphans and unwanted children when it was reported by the Boston Globe that gay couples had received children placed from the agency.[8] Massachusetts law barring "orientation discrimination" prohibited one of the nations oldest adoption agencies from refusing service to gay activists, and a mass resignation of the agencies Board in protest followed. [9]

Legal Success

Courts, including the Supreme Court, have accepted either one or both of these rationales. In Romer v. Evans, the Court found that discriminating against homosexuals could only be explained by a rational of animus laid bare, which was not enough even to allow state condemnation of homosexuality under the rational basis review test. Romer, then, protects the status of homosexuality from undue discrimination that occurs without a rational basis.[10]

Homosexual conduct was formerly illegal in many states.[11] In the last decade of the twentieth century, although these laws existed, they were rarely (if ever) enforced.[12] Without disclosing whether it saw homosexuality as a status protected from discrimination at as high of a level as gender and race, the Court struck down bans on homosexual conduct, framing it as an expansion of its privacy jurisprudence.[13]

The status of homosexuality before the law, then, is in some degree of flux. While bare discrimination against homosexual status is facially unconstitutional lacking a rational basis, and while preventing homosexual conduct is similarly unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has held in these landmark cases that the state may discriminate against homosexuals to preserve an "institution that the law protects" - namely, marriage.[14] As such, the standard to be applied in deciding if discrimination against homosexuals is wrong is somewhere in between rational basis review and strict scrutiny review. Justice Antonin Scalia thinks that this uncertainty will surely be resolved in the favor of gay rights, and he warns that such a legal erosion will result in the downfall of the law's moral authority.[15]

Opposition to Gay Rights

Polls consistently reveal that a clear majority [16][17] of people disapprove of homosexuality, or at least consider it less than ideal, and prefer that public policy does not encourage it. They also believe that accepting homosexuality would require the loss of rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and traditional marriage.[18] Conservatives criticize attempts by gay rights activists to prohibit any statements which are critical of homosexuality, such as the idea that it is "unnatural" or "sinful", using hate crimes statutes and anti-discrimination laws.

Conservatives also oppose attempts by homosexual activists to indoctrinate children through the use of tolerance or diversity programs in schools which encourage acceptance of homosexual behavior. Notable figures including Tony Perkins have expressed concerns.

  • The EU parliament called on Polish authorities to publicly condemn and take measures against declarations by officials "inciting discrimination and hatred based on sexual orientation." [1]

Support for Gay Rights

A Newsweek poll, conducted March, 2007, found that 61% of those polled felt that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military (margin of error, plus or minus 3%). The poll did not ask directly about current military policy.

The same poll found that 50% of those asked favored legal recognition of same-sex unions, either as marriages or civil unions or partnerships. 44% felt same-sex couples should have no legal recognition, with 6% unsure.[19]

Tactics

  • Kirk and Madsen predicted a mass public change of heart would follow, even among opponents, "if we can actually make them like us." [20]

Advocates routinely use deceit, notably pursuing various goal while pretending not to. For example, some advocates will claim:

  • The movement does not seek to convince others that homosexuality is right

Yet clearly the drive for "tolerance" is only one step toward the ultimate goal of "approval".

Blurring distinctions: Advocates routinely fail to distinguish between homosexual behavior and homosexuality as an "identity".

See also

References

  1. Red Roots Of Gay Movement, Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media, September 10, 2003.
  2. In Partial Payment Class Struggle, Sexuality and Gay Liberation (1978), by A. Rausch. Retrieved from Urgent Tasks: Journal of the Revolutionary Left, Sojourner Truth Organization Digital Archive , 10 May 2007.
  3. John D'Emilio, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), quoted in Martin Meeker, Behind the Mask of Respectability, Journal of the History of Sexuality, (2001) 78-116.
  4. New Russian Evidence on the Korean War Biological Warfare Allegations: Background and Analysis,Milton Leitenberg, Cold War International History Project, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
  5. Object Lesson, TIME magazine, Dec. 25, 1950.
  6. Human Rights Campaign Mourns the Death of Gay Rights Pioneer Harry Hay, Press Release, Oct. 24, 2002.
  7. The Boston Phoenix, The real Harry Hay, Michael Bronski, October 31 - November 7, 2002.
  8. Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions, By Patricia Wen, The Boston Globe, March 11, 2006.
  9. Banned in Boston, by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, 05/15/2006, Volume 011, Issue 33.
  10. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620
  11. See generally Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186
  12. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the Opinion of the Court, found this in his historical analysis.
  13. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558
  14. Lawrence v. Texas; Kennedy & O'Connor both reached this conclusion explicitly.
  15. Lawrence v. Texas, Scalia, J., dissenting.
  16. | Clinton, Obama Slow to Respond to Questions on Homosexuality Washington Post, March 18, 2007
  17. New poll shows Americans oppose gay civil unions 58%-37% Washington Post, August 18, 2003
  18. Traditional Values Coalition - Homosexual Marriage In Canada Killing Free Speech
  19. Polling Report http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
  20. How America Went Gay, by Charles W. Socarides, M.D., America, November 18, 1995.