Why has choice become the center of the whole gay rights thing?

Question

I mean, we allow people to make choices all the time. Even if homosexuality is a choice (I don't believe it is) whats wrong with giving them rights? We allow abortions, smoking, alcohol, etc. so why is this any different?

My real point, is why we as the gay community have allowed this to become the big deal. Whenever I hear this argument in person, I tell the person it makes no difference. What are everyone elses thoughts?

To the person who said "we" don't allow these things - So you're saying you've never exercised your right to make ANY choice? Must be a pretty difficult life.

My point was, a lot of people who are okay with the things I listed, aren't okay with gays getting marriage and other rights because they believe its a choice. Frankly, smokers harm the environment, people around them and themselves. Does that mean we should not allow them to marry? I don't understand your point. And please don't refer to me as "hon" I find it quite condescending. And my "moral compass" is working just fine thanks :)

Answer 1

Frankly, I think you're asking for a logical answer with which to combat an inherently illogical point of view. Those who position themselves against granting gay rights because it is a "choice" are really offering a red herring, in my opinion. The reality is, sexuality is neither chosen by heterosexuals nor by homosexuals. It always amuses me to hear some heterosexuals declare otherwise (experts in the matter, apparently), despite the direct refutation of homosexuals whom, one might think, would actually know better. To state that sexuality is a "choice" implies that, at some point, a conscious decision is made among two opposing options. Obviously this is a ridiculous scenario and few heterosexuals would claim to have made such a choice.

In any case, as you mentioned, many "choices" are protected by law. The choice to marry and have children, for instance, comes with over one thousand federal statues (in the U.S.) that offer "special rights" and protections. Despite this fact, those who condemn offering legal protections to gay people often complain about extending "special rights" to those same-sex couples who might also wish to marry. Interestingly, those same heterosexuals who oppose equality in marriage also use the excuse that marriage is for procreation and, therefore, same-sex couples should be excluded on that basis as well. Obviously there are no statutes that institute or require the rearing of children for heterosexual couples. The double standard and attendant hypocricy is glaringly obvious.

My point is, sometimes good-old-fashioned bigotry tries to dress itself up in "logic" however grasping or illogical. It is easier for those who are against gay equality (or any other particular group) to offer baseless stereotypes and fears as opposed to confronting their own prejudices and begin the process of self education.

Answer 2

In my opinion the whole thing is based on religion. For a country with a separation of church and state we sure have a lot of religiously dictated laws. It always amazes me that a person thinks they can actually tell another person they aren't really born the way they are, that it's a choice. It seems like a person must be pretty powerful to be able to make such a statement. Another argument I don't really understand is the whole procreation one. Not all straight people chose to have kids, and that's OK, yet homosexuals shouldn't be given marriage rights because they can't "breed." It makes no sense whatsoever. It's a good point you're making. How many millions of people have died from smoking? That's fine though, but for two people who love each other to be together? Blasphemy. It's really sad.

Answer 3

nicely, i'm no longer too wild approximately his vice chairman %., the two. Hillary might have given him a LANDSLIDE victory. I disagree that the two might combat consistently. i've got faith that they might artwork at the same time totally so they might beat the Republicans in the November elections. they are no longer stupid. i think of that Biden can provide Obama the adventure he desires, yet this is it. Obama desires an area with a view to garner votes. He would not have that area. i've got faith he made a mistake with the help of choosing Biden. If he did no longer desire to %. Hillary, he ought to have chosen that different woman he replace into thinking....her call starts with an S?? (sorry I forgot her call) yet i think of you ought to vote Obama besides. Do you rather desire to work out McCain win? He would not help putting gay bashing on the country's hate-crime checklist. He would not help gay rights the least bit. advantageous he will enable for Civil Unions, yet those shall be very constrained, in comparison to Obama's plan. i'm balloting for Obama. optimistically he will win. besides the fact that if, i'm dropping faith that he will in mild of this new selection of his... McCain can rather have the sting now... i'm hoping Obama is well-known with what he's doing...

Answer 4

Look at it like this, We know gay people have to endure quite a bit of discrimination, why then would they choose to be gay? The answer is that it is not a choice.

Answer 5

It's hard to dislike something about someone that isn't a choice. For example, being black or hispanic. Not many people condone racism.

For the record, I'm a bisexual man.

Answer 6

Homosexuality is morally neutral so you're right, it makes no difference.

Answer 7

you are absolutely right. So what if it were a choice.

Answer 8

We have similar minds, read this question I asked a while ago:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqG._JfJi2VCS5H2VHjqCTAAAAAA?qid=20070309164726AAoHco3