Your Behavior Is Not Your Race
The somewhat recent signing of the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act ( RFRA ) sparked a firestorm of shouting and counter-shouting about discrimination on TV, radio, newspapers, and the internet. I’m not going to weigh in on the RFRA, but there is a line of argument in these debates that I find particularly odd. That line of argument is that discriminating against homosexuals is the same as discriminating against race or sex. The common refrain is “would it be ok to refuse service to a black person?” and the inference is that when you say “no, obviously not”, then it is logically just as wrong to refuse service to a homosexual.
First, before I get hate mail from all three of the people who will read this post, I could care less whether you’re a man, woman, or transgender. I don’t care if you’re heterosexual or homosexual. You could be black, white, brown or blue and it wouldn’t matter to me. What matters to me is that we try to look at our world objectively and that we try to categorize things appropriately. If you’re going to argue for something, argue for what it is, don’t try to obfuscate what you’re doing or what you represent.
Now, to the main point. When someone is born with a certain skin color, they are born with an inherent physical characteristic that cannot ( and should not ) be changed. Whether they like it or not, a person born with a certain skin pigment is stuck with that skin pigment for the rest of their life. Yes, I can already hear the clacking of keyboards saying that homosexuals are also born with inherent characteristics that make them homosexual. I am not going to deny that. However, a homosexual is born not with a physical characteristic ( I think we can all agree that homosexuals can be of any physical make-up ), but rather with what I will label a genetically-based behavioral preference.
A genetically-based behavioral preference is just what it sounds. It is a preference for a certain type of behavior that is built into one’s genetic makeup. Heterosexuality is a genetically-based behavioral preference. So is homosexuality. Other examples of genetically-based behavioral preferences include: love of music, alcoholism, night/morning preference, competitive/non-competitive nature, and more. Every person is born with hundreds, even thousands, of genetically-based behavioral preferences. They are a big part of what makes up our personality and helps guide us through our chosen cultural experiences and further personal development.
Yay, that’s great and all, but so what. Well, so what about those genetically-based behavioral preferences that are considered negative by society? It’s obvious that homosexuality once was ( and still is by some ) considered a negative behavior. Some genetically-based behavioral preferences that are still considered negative include a disposition toward alcoholism or drug addiction or the general preference of heterosexual men of almost any age for young and attractive women ( if you don’t think that last one has a negative reputation, just ask ten women over 40 how they would feel if their husband divorced them and married a 22 year old … and if you don’t think a lot of men would do that if they thought they could … well … I have unicorns for sale, just message me ).
As I mentioned above, my goal here is to achieve the correct categorization of what we as a society are facing and deciding upon whenever there is a decision to be made. The current debate about “homosexual rights” is not about discrimination based on inherent physical characteristics, it is a debate about which genetically-based behavioral preferences are socially acceptable and which are not. In the past, many of these decisions were made based upon the need of the species to propagate and survive. As such, while homosexual individuals certainly existed in past societies and sometimes even held vital roles within their community, a common thread was to grant greater respect and acceptance to those who would reproduce — heterosexuals. Now that human survival and reproduction is almost virtually assured, alternate behavior preferences that were once pushed to the rear are asking for recognition and acceptance within our society. And we can have that debate. We can look at a variety of alternate behavioral preferences and state that we’re ready for this one, that one, and the other one … but not these five. We can argue about it, vote on it, refine our decision, and move forward as a society.
I’m not asking for a national RFRA ( though Bill Clinton did sign one in the 90’s ), nor am I asking for Christian photographers to be forced to work a gay wedding ( though they have been already ). I’m asking that we discuss and debate — even argue — honestly and with appropriate understanding and categorization. So argue for ‘gay rights’, or against the ‘homosexual agenda’, but don’t you dare try to equate a behavioral preference ( homosexuality ) with a physical characteristic ( race or sex ).
