Gay rights

From RationalWiki

A baker's dozen on Human Sexuality

Bigamy Abortion Sexologists Corporate Equality Index Heterosexuality Incest Kinsey scale NAMBLA Naked Reparative therapy Sex Sexual reproduction Slut

The gay rights movement is a social force consisting of people interested in removing the social stigma from homosexuality, and allowing gay men and women to be equal participants in society. Despite arguments to the contrary, there is no homosexual agenda: other than the dream and goal that one day gays will be treated as equals in human society.

Contents 1 Core Beliefs 2 Legal Success 3 Queer Theory 4 Conservapedia's Problems with Gay Rights 5 See Also 6 Footnotes

[edit] Core Beliefs

The gay rights movement does not seek to convince others that homosexuality is right: rather, it seeks to prove that it is not wrong enough to regulate, criminalize, or stigmatize, and also to prove that gays are valuable members of society who deserve no different treatment.

Gay rights activists make one of two arguments:

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 (cf. religious intolerance).

[edit] 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.^[1]

Homosexual conduct was formerly illegal in many states.^[2] In the last decade of the twentieth century, although these laws existed, they were rarely (if ever) enforced.^[3] 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.^[4]

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.^[5] 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.^[6] Surely, society will end shortly thereafter.

[edit] Queer Theory

Queer theory is an outgrowth of the gay rights movement that suggests that while homosexuals deserve equal treatment, they either should not or do not want equal access to "heteronormative" institutions, such as marriage. As a unique and valid lifestyle, "queer theorists" argue, gay communities should create their own norms rather than buying into those of the majority.

[edit] Conservapedia's Problems with Gay Rights

Many of the Conservapedia sysops have a particular axe to grind against gay rights. We at RationalWiki wonder, why? Moving, on, some of their particular arguments are:

• RobS argues that Harry Hay, apparently a leader of the gay rights movement, had several personal problems. These personal problems, apparently by extension, are imputed to the entire gay rights movement as a whole. Sins of the fathers, anyone? Assuming arguendo that Harry Hay really is this important, we think it is self-evident that the failures of a movement's founders are not the failures of the movement. Otherwise, America would forever be tainted beyond redemption by the evils of slavery, Christianity would forever be tainted by the crusades, and creationism would forever be tainted by the idiocy and tax evasion of Kent Hovind. The last one, we have no problem with.
• RobS also argues that calling someone homophobic is evil, and just as evil as being homophobic and using anti-gay slurs. One reason, put forth by RobS, is that most homophobic men are actually gay, apparently, and that vilifying homophobia is therefore vilifying homosexuals.^[7] To attempt to understand this "argument," please see this page.

[edit] See Also

• Allen R. Schindler, Jr
• Lawrence v. Texas
• Reparative therapy
• Romer v. Evans
• Substantive due process

[edit] Footnotes

1. ↑ Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620
2. ↑ See generally Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186
3. ↑ Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the Opinion of the Court, found this in his historical analysis.
4. ↑ Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558
5. ↑ Lawrence v. Texas; Kennedy & O'Connor both reached this conclusion explicitly.
6. ↑ Lawrence v. Texas, Scalia, J., dissenting.
7. ↑ Does this mean that RobS is gay? Is he trying to tell us something?