Many homosexuals have contributed greatly through their work.
Which proves exactly what? Many people with traits or behaviors society does NOT want to encourage have also contributed greatly through their work. Surely because W.C. Fields was a great actor doesn't mean we should encourage drunkenness? Jack Kevorkian was, as far as I know, a pathologist who contributed through his work, but that doesn't mean I have to approve of his version of assisted suicide. The Son of Sam was reported by his employer to be a very good employee.
Basically, what I think we are coming to is that there is no good rational scientific argument on either side of the issue of whether it is right or wrong to discriminate against people who for whatever reason (genetic compulsion, environment, free choice, or some combination of these) adopt a homosexual lifestyle. It is a matter of personal belief.
For some people that personal belief is rooted in religion. For some it is rooted in experience with individual homosexuals, as yours seems to be. (One wonders what your views were before you had a son, or before your son revealed himself to you as having homosexual preferences.) With some it is rooted in what is often called secular humanism. With some it is rooted in the history of social taboo. Some can't even say what it is rooted in, but they have it.
There is no "right" or "wrong" out there which we can reach for, as we can with, say, the existence of Hydrogen. Nor is there fairly universal agreement, as there is, for example, agreement that it is wrong for a person to walk up to a stranger on the street and, purely randomly and with no reason for the act, kill that person purely for the pleasure of seeing a person die at your hand. |
