Peaceful existence in a nation rich in multi-ethnic, multi-cultural diversity requires the civility of citizens who show respect for those who differ from them. Requiring such goodwill is good for the nation. People who (within the law) choose different beliefs, morals and lifestyles, must be asked to live in harmony with one another. And we have made great strides in promoting respect–particularly through civil rights on race and gender, and through special laws protecting the disabled.
What greatly concerns me is the inclusion of sexual preference into the category of civil rights. This is dangerous to liberty because civil-rights battles should be restricted to matters of nature, not lifestyle. The referendums that have appeared on the ballots in several states have confirmed that most Americans do not want the sexual lifestyles of others forced on them or normalized for everyone.
Like all civilized people, we have laws restricting some types of sexual behavior. Rape, incest and all sexual contact between adults and children are rightly illegal. Beyond these restrictions, consenting adults are free to live their sexual preferences. But to ask our nation to make new and special laws for these preferences is to force the lifestyle choices of others on everyone. If a homosexual lifestyle, for example, becomes a protected status equal with race and gender, people will not be free to be morally opposed to homosexual behavior. Comparison of race or gender with sexual orientation is a false comparison.
It is equally ill-advised to seek a radical redefinition of the institution of marriage to accommodate the sexual preference of a small group of Americans. Americans clearly do not want this to happen. Sexual preferences outside of heterosexuality are not matters of nature. Heterosexuality is a matter of nature because without it there would be no human race.
Yet in a civilized nation, people should be asked to treat respectfully those who (lawfully) choose different sexual lifestyles. But when these lifestyles are forced on others as is happening in States like Massachusetts, liberty is wrongly threatened. Let’s be clear: forced affirmation and endorsement of lifestyles you disagree with is a threat to true freedom. There is an important difference between required respect (which is necessary) and forced affirmation or indoctrination. In a free and diverse nation, tolerance is a safeguard to civility. But tolerance that asks for more than respectful treatment of others, is not only deeply misguided, it is a form of intolerance.
If we don’t respect this distinction, the liberty of our nation will be threatened. We will be under the tyranny of tolerance and no exception will be tolerated! Parents and teachers in public schools in Massachusetts are feeling the destruction of liberty as their children are facing forced indoctrination of the homosexual lifestyle. Elementary-aged children are being sent home with diversity packets without parental consent and parents are being forced to comply. Business owners and doctors are also being forced to affirm homosexual preferences that violate their beliefs and morals.
This is not tolerance, nor is it respectful. It is coerced approval of the lifestyle choices of others. Discrimination (in actual civil-rights cases) injures people for what they are by nature, not for lifestyles they choose. It is a threat to liberty to start protecting lifestyles with special laws and forcing those lifestyles on others. People who chose a homosexual lifestyle once said they only wanted to be left alone to live they way they desired. In a free nation, this would be a fair request and could be enforced with existing laws.
But the radical homosexual community does not want tolerance and freedom to live their preference. They want forced acceptance and indoctrination on everyone (even our children) to normalize their sexual choices in society. If the nation goes the way of Massachusetts, liberty will be profoundly disrupted, chaos will follow and the great progress we’ve made will be unnecessarily threatened.
see also: God, Government and Gays