NAACP Chairman Julian Bond gave a great speech to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Gala Saturday, and makes the case that "Gay Rights are Civil Rights!" Some homophobic black preachers need to watch this:
My only problem with Bond's speech is his emphasis on sexuality being an "immutable" trait like race, and that the constitution protects us from discrimination based on immutable traits. First, sexual orientation is NOT totally biologically or immutable (See Queer By Choice), and Second, our rights are not only based on biological characteristics. The Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantee all citizens equal protection under the law and freedom of conscience--i.e., the freedom to CHOOSE our religious, political and yes choose our sexual identity/preference.
The liberal "biological" argument for gay rights leaves out bisexuals and those who do CHOOSE to be gay, bi, or straight.
Anyway, still a good speech that should persuade most rational people to support LGBT rights.
See Also:
Greg In Hollywood
Citizen Crain
(I wish people at the Human Rights Campaign would read David Richards' IDENTITY AND THE CASE FOR GAY RIGHTS to learn how to make the case for LGBT rights without resorting to questionable scientific claims about sexual orientation being a biologically immutable trait.)
Democratic Socialists Win Elections
6 years ago
Posts
3 comments:
I have a friend who said his cousin chose to be gay. But I do not think his cousin meant he chose to be attracted men, but rather chose to accepted his feelings for men.
I agree that while sexuality is innate, it is not 100% innate. Other factors come into play that influences sexuality. It can change over time. But I do not believe I ever chose to be asexual or a fetishist. I choose to engage in fetishists acts with friends, but I never one day chose to have fetishes or be asexual.
Well sexuality is complex, which is why I reject the biological argument, there are also psychological and sociological factors. They may be different for different people, so there is no ONE factor in the development of sexual orientation or sexual identity, but we sure are not BORN gay or straight. We learn sexual roles and acquire sexual desires in the process. We may or may not CHOOSE them, but we choose to identify as "gay" or "straight," we are not BORN gay or straight.
So we cannot make the case for gay rights based only on biological theories. David Richards' book (Identity and the Case for Gay Rights) lays out a better political strategy--we have the right to CHOOSE our sexual identity, just like our religion.
We don't have to prove that people cannot choose to be gay, etc.
There are too many loopholes and ifs in that political argument...
Agreed Jim, there is no evidence for a gay gene. Sexuality is not just biological but also enviornmental as well. I do not know how those factors came into play with me, but I did choose to call myself an asexual and a fetishist.
Post a Comment