Discrimination against LGBT

Why is there still so much hate and discrimination against people for being LGBT? I think a lot of this can depend on the culture a person is present in, and the various cultural cues and signals you get that define what is and what is not acceptable. For some people, issues around sexuality and gender challenge their worldview to the point of impossibility.

Sometimes, those people lean back on religion, or tradition, but whatever the justification, that’s not the “reason”, it’s the reason they use to cover up the idea that the world is way more complex than they want to deal with.

It’s nice and tidy to look at humans and see men or women, who pair up and make babies. That tidiness is shot to hell when you have men and women and androgynous and genderqueer and genderfluid and trans and homo-, bi-, pan-, a-, and demi- and hetero-sexuals. That’s way too much complexity for people.

People have a hard time accepting things that clash with their own supply held views. Some cat owners considers dog lovers as crazy. People are prepared to kill others just because of the colour of their skin. In short, most of us have a hard time understanding when others don't share our likes, dislikes, feelings, looks, etc. Some cannot stop at that; some wants to elevate their dislikes and likes to law.

Religion. Someone in the past wrote their likes and dislikes into holy scripture. Even now people suffer for it. Due to the all too prevalent place of, and respect for, religion even in secular societies, these opinions, that would be ignored as nonsense if they came from a cat lover, suddenly is a political platform.

Love your sports team, your pet, skin colour, sexual orientation, or car brand. But don't force your likes upon others. Especially not when it's something that is something you had no influence over. Your skin tone or sexual orientation isn't something you choose. It's just an indicator of your lineage and the genetic lottery.

I don't care much about your likes, dislikes, sexual orientation, gender, skin colour, music taste, pets, music taste, etc. Just don't try to push it upon others by legislation. If you want to hate gays or just think they are icky, by all means, do. Just let them be. They are unlikely to affect your life in any way unless you go out of your way to make them.

When a church is acting solely as a church, they should be able to pick and choose those they do or don't want in their club. That's a compromise that we need if we are going to honor the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment. However, there is no movement of LGBT people trying to force their way into the churches that hate them. A purely religious institution should have the legal right to discriminate, yes.

I dislike that they choose to, so often, but it is not the role of the government to tell religious people how to run the communities, with the exception of obvious abuse of children or adults. The best way to address discrimination against LGBT folks and women is through social commentary and critique, from outside and within the communities.

However, when a church acts as a business, they are required to follow the same laws as secular businesses. This is the core of the controversy over religious exceptions to anti-discrimination laws.

The bishops chose to get out of the adoption business rather than to comply with the law. Although I disagree with Catholic positions on many things, there is integrity in the bishops' decision to step out of their role of facilitating adoptions when they could no longer do it in good conscience.

In a free society, religious institutions need to maintain their autonomy, which includes having the freedom to define what their religious beliefs are. Based on our concept in the U.S. of the separation of church and state, no church can be forced to not discriminate or to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

However, since governmental agencies exist to provide services which benefit the general public, those agencies which have been given the authority to perform marriage ceremonies cannot pick and choose who shall receive the benefit of those services. Therefore, those agencies, such as City Hall, must perform marriage ceremonies for the LGBT community.

As to any religion’s claim that homosexuality is wrong violates every religion’s beliefs about kindness, understanding and sharing the glory of God. Such a belief is also contrary to science. Christianity and other religions treat the condition of homosexuality as if these individuals have a choice, as if anyone would deliberately choose to be that different from the majority of society. It’s idiotic.

Homosexuals have no more control over their sexual orientation than those born with cerebral palsy have over the conditions of their illness. Leanne Payne, an author and theologian from Wisconsin, has done a lot of work with conversion from homosexuality to heterosexuality. I’ve met and heard the testimony of some of her successes, but I have no idea whether the successes from 20 years ago successes are still today.

1. homosexuality is not a choice; a person is born either biologically heterosexual or biologically homosexual;
2. the Bible was written a few thousand years before mankind understood #1;
3. though the Bible is the Word of God, who is all-knowing, it was written by men who are fallible and may have gotten this aspect incorrect; therefore,
4. it seems that, given those facts, Christianity ought to be making a reasonable adjustment in its belief system.

I’m not a theologian, but, based on what I know about Christianity, it’s hard to imagine how anyone can be a Christian and believe that God has turned His back on those who are born with a different sexual orientation or different gender identity.

Where I come from on this is that there's no happy compromise where religious people (or other homophobes) get to treat LGBT people like shit a little bit for no coherently explainable reason, and LGBT people smile and say, ""How nice, they're earnest people with sincere religious (or non-religious) beliefs."" As various great people have said, other people's liberty to swing their fist stops right where my nose begins, and I take that to include religious liberty. Religious people may see a principled act of conscientious objection, but all I see is a denial of service attack in the same hateful spirit as any number of previous ""righteous"" attacks, from beating LGBT people up, to sending them off to ""ex-gay"" camps for psychological and physical torture, to locking them in jail. I don't want just some of that stopped, I want it all stopped.

So the unhappy compromise on offer, and the only one on offer, is that destructive ""freedom of conscience"" is permitted but very narrowly confined. Pastors should be able to decline to celebrate same-sex marriages, or decline to offer their church buildings for the purposes. In fact they should be able to run LGBT visitors off the premises entirely if they so choose. Religious people (and any other people) as individuals should be able to disinvite LGBT people from their homes and social events, and refuse invitations to same-sex weddings. They should even be able to boycott LGBT-owned businesses if they choose. And if they do any of these things, LGBT people get to think they're hateful jerks.

However once religious homophobes (or any other sort of homophobes) set themselves up as public accommodations, offering services to the public as a business or landlord or employer, or they become government officials, then no. And if religious people (or any other people) discriminate against LGBT people while doing any of these things, LGBT people get to bring the law down on them like a ton of bricks.

It comes down to how can one person's rights be allowed to infringe upon another person's rights. If it is legal for a person to smoke, is it also legal for somebody to refuse to allow smoking in his restaurant? Does the smoker's right to smoke outweigh the non-smoker's right to breathe clean, fresh smelling air? Is it denying the smoker the right to smoke? No, simply not in the non-smoker's restaurant. He can go outside to smoke or go to a restaurant that allows smoking.

Do people have the right to be LGBT? Of course, they do - but are they not infringing on the rights of the Church (and Pastor/Priest/Preacher) to follow the Bible, which does not allow homosexuality? Yes, they would be infringing on somebody else's right. Do they have the right to get married? If the State allows it, yes they do. Do they have the right to demand the marriage be performed in a church? No, they don't. Just because I have a driver's license, the right to drive a vehicle, doesn't mean I can just come and drive your vehicle."

Did you like this example?

1082

45