From: cjk@netcom.com
Subject: Homosexuality as a religion
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:54:22 GMT


     HOMOSEXUALITY VS. ANTI-HOMOSEXUALITY
          From following the homosexuality vs. anti-homosexuality debate
     I have drawn  the following picture.
             
          There is a broad spectrum of fundamental beliefs in each camp. 
     In  the    homosexual  camp  this  ranges from  the totally  radical
     gay/lesbian  activists  who  would  have   everybody  believe   that
     homosexuality  is natural  hereditary   state and  believe that  all
     humans repress their  homosexuality to  the   rather mundane  garden
     variety "closet homosexual".  Conversely in the other  camp we  have
     the Ultra conservative religious fundamentalists who  believe   that
     homosexuality is inherently  evil, immoral,  unethical, sinful,  and
     leads to the degeneration of society, to the ordinary rather mundane
     garden variety "homophobe".
          Its unfortunate but it seems that the deeper you are dug onto
     these  camps,  the louder  you are.   So  it seems  that the  fringe
     represents the group as a whole and tends to portray the  opposition
     in  the  most   negative  way   it  can.   Thus,  homosexuals   call
     anti-homosexuals    "gay-basher",    "homophobic",        "repressed
     homosexual", "bigot", and the like.  And  the anti-homosexuals  call
     the homosexuals "freaks", "immoral", "sinful",   "unchristian",  and
     the like. With the lines being drawn this way, is it any wonder that
     no progress is  being made?   Is  it a  wonder that  they hate  each
     other?

     WHAT DOES EACH WANT
          Well for the homosexuals its the freedom to be homosexual in
     both  private  and  public  life  and  to enjoy  "equal rights"  and
     "protection" status from  anti-homosexuality sentiment.   They  base
     this  on  the  fundamentals  of life  liberty and  happiness of  the
     Constitution..    This is  under the   assumption  that they  didn't
     choose to be homosexual but were made homosexual.  They in actuality
     want to be considered  "normal".   That they  simply are  homosexual
     because they are.
          For the anti-homosexuals its the freedom to distinguish between
     behavior   that they  find acceptable  and behavior  that they  find
     unacceptable.  This is under  the assumption  that homosexuality  is
     not hereditary but by choice and  thus reflects  the personality  of
     the person involved.  They want the  right of free association  that
     is not discriminatory against race or sex but discriminatory against
     personality conflicting with their own.

     GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED HOMOSEXUALITY
          Homosexuals want legislation that protects them from
     discrimination just  as there  is legislation  that protects  racial
     discrimination.   Further  on the  agenda is  "education" in  public
     schools  on  homosexuality.   Or  teaching our  young children  that
     homosexuality is natural and their rights should not be violated  as
     it is in racial discrimination.
          Anti-homosexuals protest these goals.  By passing legislation
     protecting sexual  preference rights,  they feel  the government  is
     sanctioning    homosexuality.   This is  a direct  affront to  their
     reason  and  to  their     religion.     Further  more,   portraying
     homosexuality as anything but abnormal  to our children violates the
     very  core  of  Christian fundamental  beliefs. Think  about this.  
     Christianity itself is just about a forbidden topic in todays public
     schools.  How can they  (the Christians)  justify without  cynicism,
     the teaching of homosexual lifestyle in todays public schools   when
     their lifestyle is forbidden.  How can that be reconciled?

     [JUST A SIDE NOTE] Making public schools a battle ground for  todays
     social  controversies  is ruining  the education  that our  children
     receive.

     DEFINITIVE AND NON-DEFINITIVE CLASSES
          I've seen many [failed] attempts to try to apply the "RACIAL"
     argument when debating homosexual vs. anti-homosexual attitudes. The
     most  common  ones starting  with "They  said the  same thing  about
     Negroes.....".    These   arguments all  fall apart  when you  start
     classifying the classes of   minorities.     Racial minorities  fall
     under definitive classes.  You can  define the trait or feature that
     distinguishes them from others.   Further more,  they cannot  change
     those traits or features.  Homosexual minorities are non-definitive.
      There are no features or traits besides their actions that separate
     them from others.  Further more, one can  be   homosexual today  and
     heterosexual tomorrow.
          How can you define them as a minority when a person can exit
     and enter this group at will?  How can you test for homosexuality?  
     Will there be a homosexual review board?

     HOMOSEXUALITY AS A RELIGION
          Homosexual groups are set with the difficult task of proving
     that  homosexuality is a bona-fide group.  To do this  they have  to
     define homosexuality in such a way that determines  either you  are,
     or you  aren't. It  seems to  me that  any such  endeavor will  only
     result  in  facts  that  are  subjective,   observations  mired   in
     controversy,  and  conclusions  that  will  always  be  suspect   or
     indeterminate.
          I believe that classifying homosexuality as a religion would
     grant  homosexuals equal protection under the constitution, granting
     it all rights and rules and  regulations and  equally as  important,
     restrictions  as other religions are subject.  Yet classify it where
     it belongs--in the  belief category.  Thus maintaining the right  of
     all those opposed to homosexuality, to disbelieve and actively speak
     out  against  that  lifestyle  without  being  called  "prejudiced",
     "bigoted", while maintaining the  individual  homosexual's right  to
     fair and equal treatment as set forth in  the constitution.
          Furthermore, homosexuality will be treated the same as religion
     in public schools.  Access to this doctrine will be restricted  from
     the school curriculum.


Chris Kevlahan
cjk@netcom.com (internet)
1@6796 (virtual net)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality