There are distinct differences between race and gender discrimination and that of gays. Right or wrong, deserving or not, they are different circumstances.
Being gay describes an activity, being black or female does not.
There are open outward indicators of being black or female that are beyond the control of the person and permanent. This allows anyone to discriminate against you knowing your race and gender status on sight.
Indication of being gay requires either verbal conformation or somehow being caught in the act. Unless you are contending â??gaydarâ?? based on how a person acts in which case you are now arguing â??how a person actsâ?? discrimination, not gay discrimination.
Even assuming there is a genetic link to a tendency toward homosexuality, being gay requires voluntary action. Being female of black does not.
There is (supposedly, I havenâ??t really studied it) a genetic link to alcoholism. However, having that gene and a tendency to alcohol abuse doesnâ??t label one an alcoholic. Actually drinking too much makes you an alcoholic with or without the gene. A baby born with the gene isnâ??t alcoholic.
Even with a genetic link it requires a conscious decision. I donâ??t buy being born gay any more than being born alcoholic.
Now, Iâ??m not arguing against homosexuals, or fair treatment under the law (though hate crime legislation is a crock). All Iâ??m arguing against is the comparison to race/gender discrimination. The gay rights campaign is itâ??s own unique struggle to protect a conscious choice and conscious act.
And before you attack me over it, with the alcohol comparison, I'm comparing one the genetic predisposition to a choice, not relating homosexuality to a disease.