Medieval and modern periods homosexuals were prosecuted. Enlightenment brought some
liberation, substituting death penalty by imprisonment.
orientation is not a choice, but our genetic predisposition, homosexual acts are still considered to
be immoral and even illegal in majority of countries and in the eyes of most religious groups
homosexuals, probably, always will be the subjects of anathema. As much as the future may look
they should take towards homosexuals, many common Americans also have no clear
understanding of how to react to homosexuality.
Why should we bother to find the answer to the questions: who are the homosexuals and
even your spouse can be one of them. According to Richard D. Mohr “[t]wo out of five men one
experiences”(186). Should we avoid them, ignore, express our anger and disgust? Unfortunately,
orientation. For them homosexuality is perversion, abnormality or decease. The ignorance may
homosexuality sharply limits how all men and women may acceptably behave, among
themselves and with each other.
concern. In attempt to evaluate our attitude towards people of different sexual orientation we will
question is: Do we have the right to discriminate against homosexuals? Until recently
homosexuals were invisible minority. Therefore, many Americans were unaware that gays and
lesbians were discriminated against. But homosexuals were and still are treated unfairly on the
basis that they undermine our morality, that they present danger to our children and that they are
transmitters of AIDS far more than heterosexuals. Today many gays and lesbians come out of
“the closet” and demand the same rights that heterosexual take for granted. We have to admit that
some steps have been made to protect homosexuals. However, many government and public
institutions and individuals still discriminate against homosexuals denying them employment,
housing, insurance, marriage, child?s custody and so on. Why is it allowed to discriminate against
immoral, that it is illegal, that it is a sin against nature and violation of God?s law and, some
people consider homosexual variety [as a] proof of existence of Satan .
therefore, support the idea that gays and lesbians deserve to suffer. As Pete Hamill points out
world, by people who fear or hate their version of human sexuality”(532). But as was mentioned
above, the medical studies confirm that being gay is not a matter of choice or preference, but a
many would have preferred not to be homosexual. It is hard to imagine the somebody would
voluntary give up all the privileges of being straight and subject himself to harassment,
discrimination, assaults and scorn. Some argue that the homosexual act is unnatural since it is not
procreative. Then why don?t we discriminate against sterile couples or those of over childbearing
Others express their concern that by granting homosexuals rights we will give our
it is important to notice, that for one, pedophillia is not necessary a homosexual act. Secondly, it
and Donald H. Mader point out “the power imbalance between the adult and the younger partner
Unlike pedophillia, a homosexual act is consent between two adults, no harm to others is done
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
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 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
find it possible to share the same maturity. Moreover, in the wake of AIDS encouraging gay
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 family?s 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
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
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.
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 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 aren?t 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
1. Francoeur, Robert T. “Should Society Recognize Gay Marriages?” Taking sides: Clashing
Views on controversial Issues.
3. Geraci, Joseph and Donald H. Mader. “Pedophillia.” Encyclopedia of Homosexuality Ed.
Reader. 2nd Ed. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Chanell: Mayfield Publishing, Mountain
View, California,1998: 531-536.
6. 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.
7. Nickel, Jeffrey. “Everybody?s 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.
9. Ulanowsky, Carole. “The Family.” Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics. Editor-in-Chief Ruth
Chadwick. Academic Press: San Diego, 1998: v2,