Well, you make some very well thought out points in your post. At first I thought you were characterizing things in a very black and white fashion, as to whether a predisposition was only that, or an absolute trait. But as I read further I came to this paragraph, which I completely agree with....
If you understand it, and agree that the distinction in principle is a fair distinction to make, then we can move on to the harder question: how does society decide which predispositions can acceptably be translated into behaviors, and which cannot. And in our specific case, on which side of this line does homosexuality fall?
So, that brings us back to homosexuality, as one of these predispositions, and where it sits in the general scheme of things in a legal sense. My feeling is that gays don't hurt anybody and so, who cares? I would be more inclined to prosecute a male chauvanist pig! Their behavior is more offensive to me than that of a gay man. Unfortunately nobody agrees with me, especially not the MSPs. But I do believe the outcry against gays is just as random as my negativity towards some men... in short, I believe it is the religious organizations that have publicly stated their opposition to the gay lifestyle, and that alone is where gay discrimination comes from... which means, from my pov there is not enough factual basis for excluding gays from much of anything. I will say that most of the discussions regarding gays and gay rights pretty quickly degrade into scripture quotations and that kind of makes the point. |
