Yes, it is patently wrong to treat practicing homosexuals differently than hetrosexuals.
Are you sure?
Is there even such a “thing” as a homosexual?
Is there such a “thing” as a masochist? Isn’t a masochist just a person that is attracted to pain?
Are you a certain thing if you like all things Star Trek? You’re a Trekkie, one would say, but we understand that it is a label for a attribute… and not the thing itself.
For people that like sex of certain kinds… they are actually just people, not the thing they like doing.
How did “homosexuals” get on the list of “things” that get protection, but masochists didn’t?
It seems to me that there is a confusion between the adjectives of a thing, and the thing itself.
Guys that prefer men… are just guys. And it’s fair to judge and discriminate between individuals based on what they do. Any protections must go to people because they are people… and not for the things they like to do… otherwise you are protecting their *activities, interests or urges*… and isn’t really supportable.
“I like boffing guys, and this activity deserves protection…”
I beg to differ.
“I like boffing children, and this activity deserves protection…”
Clearly it doesn’t deserve protection… and why would it?
It doesn’t hurt to protect people with certain tastes…? Of course it does as it demotes/degrades the meaning and purpose of protection. When we grant protections of proclivities as if we were protecting life itself really throws a wrench into the works.