Help! Sexual Preference, Race, Religious, all alike or dislike?

[FaithM]

It is finals week and my Law and Inequality Professor assigned a paper asking this question:
Is Sexual Orientation analogous to religion or race for purposes of constitutional protection or should it be made analogous for equal protection or due process protection under the U.S. Constitution? Why or why not is sexual orientation similar such that it should be treated comparably?

I am curious to know some of your opinions. I know that this is a conservative site and need help because I cannot find any material to back anything up on this subject to make my opinion. I consider myself a conservative, I am curious to know your opinions and to see if anyone at this site has any sources to back up their conservative opinions. Then, I could use those things in my 23 - 25 page paper.
I would appreciate it.
Thanks Tons! I am at a dead end.

[Beowulf]

Faith, I'll try to answer it.

I don't think race, sexual orientation, religious or whatever should give anyone special rights, bonus points, preference or extra protection rights by any law. All too many people now use their races, sexual orientation, religion or whatever for personal gain. It is why our courts are backlogged with discrimination cases.

Since you're in college, you know that minorities get bonus points on admissions for entry so they can have lesser grades and lower SAT scores than you and still be admitted while you are denied. I don't know about you but this is wrong. If we extend this to gays and lesbians, I have no doubt that the same problem will exist. Before long, qualified people will be denied and might at best be educated in a Community College.

I hope this answers your question at least a little. If you want more, PM me with more info.

[CzechPrince]

I think everything like Affirmative action should be abolished. Booker T. Washington and Martin Luther King Jr. are probably rolling over in their graves right now with minorities and females getting preferance into schools, jobs, etc, simply because of their age.

Faith just to give you a personal example: I can speak Czech, so I would be considered bi-lingual. My dad won't allow me to put that on their for fear of, "needy" government programs, assistance, and preferance. Now I will put that when I apply for a job, becasue that is a plus to be able to communicate in 2 languages.

I am also Native American, my mom is almost full Cherokee. She would not allow me to put Native American on any tests or such for the same reasons. My grandfather (her dad) had oil claims in Oklahoma but never took them, becasue he, my mom, my dad, his parents, and I were brought up you don't get somthing for nothing.

[CzechPrince]

Down With Title 9 Too!!!!

[Naturalized-Texan]

There is no concrete evidence that sexual orientation is other than a choice, despite contrary claims that it is in the genes.

Beowulf is correct when he wrote:
I don't think race, sexual orientation, religious or whatever should give anyone special rights, bonus points, preference or extra protection rights by any law.

[I Love My Country!]

Sexual preference is a choice, it is not genetic. Those who claim that homosexuality is in the genes, they're grossly uneducated.

“The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over” (see “Human Genome Report...,” 2003, emp. added). Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, but also speculated on how the information would now be used. The one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called “gay gene.” http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp (http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp)





Evan S. Balaban, a neurobiologist at the Neurosciences Institute in San Diego, noted that







the search for the biological underpinnings of complex human traits has a sorry history of late. In recent years, researchers and the media have proclaimed the “discovery” of genes linked to alcoholism and mental illness as well as to homosexuality. None of the claims...has been confirmed (as quoted in Horgan, 1995).

So if anyone tries to tell you homosexuality is genetic, then continue to destroy them with the data in the link above. Back to marriage.


The state trying to govern the church is an extreme violation of the separation of church and state. Who is the state to govern the church? The one thing ALL religions have in common is, that marriage is between a man and woman. The all may disagree in some aspects (or a lot) but they all have the same thing to say about marriage. It's between a man and woman. Who is the state to govern the church? Should there not be a wall between church and state? Should that wall be destroyed in order to grant gay marriage? Certainly NOT! Is it ok to bar prayer form school, stating that state and church should be separate? Then turn around and try to govern the church, doing the exact opposite? What about the kids constitutional rights to practice the free exercise thereof (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof)?

Their "rights" were brushed to the side in order to separate the church and state. Where is their equal protection under the law?


What I'm trying to get at here is you can not have your cake and eat it too. They have their separation of Church and State now they must live with it.

[DoctorDoom]

Q: do you and Jill (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=197314) have the same professor, or all they all clue-challeged twits?

Accepting the ridiculous term "orientation" (applied exclusively to homosexuality) plays the game by liberal rules. The libs are fond of euphemisms and diversionary terms that conceal the ugly reality of their agenda.

The intent is to normalize and legitimize a sexual aberration. There is absolutely no rational basis for singling out one specific sexual abnormality for special treatment — and "gay rights" is nothing BUT special treatment based solely on what one chooses to do with his/her sexual organs.

Your professor should be asked what his/her (you didn't mention "gender") views are on normalizing ALL paraphilias involving "consenting adults", rather than engaging in clearly discriminatory activism for just one "orientation". If our culture legitimizes homosexuality, then it should also legitimize polyamory, S&M, B&D, "water sports", and a host of other deviant sexual behaviors between "consenting adults".

What are his/her views on a father marrying his adult son, or a mother her daughter? What about group marriages where 5 or 10 or 20 men and women are all married to each other both homosexually and heterosexually? They would after all be "consenting adults", the only standard that libs cite when justifying perversion.

This is a thinly disguised effort by Prof. Libschitz to promote the queer agenda. The reference to equal protection is obviously aimed at queer "marriage", since homosexuals already have full legal protection as American citizens for their gross behavior — and indeed preferential treatment in many areas, since no other group would be allowed to strut naked down city streets, engaging in obscene, offensive, confrontational behavior that deliberately violates ever standard of decency and morality, and professing their "pride" in their perverse sexuality.

Re religion, the prof is out in left field when attempting to make such comparisons. There is no credible basis for equating religion with sexual behavior.

IMO, the prof is a hyperliberal jerk who is cheerleading for queers, and shouldn't be in a position where s/he can adversely influence young people with leftist psychobabble.

[Kathy29]

What the homsexuals are asking for is constitutional protection be given to a behavior. Behavior is not like race. Race is immutable. The method one uses to have sex is not immutable.

Religion's constitutional protections are given to the belief in religion, not the practice of religion. One can firmly and sincerely belief that human sacrifice in a necessary method of worship. They are not free to practice human sacrifice. The METHOD of exercising their belief is certainly prohibited.

Therefore the METHOD one uses to enjoy sex is not entitled to constitutional protection.

Once behavior receives constitutional protection there is no way to avoid chaos. Each behavioral pattern will build upon the other (stare decisis) until there are no limits.

Constitutional protections are not absolute. You have the right to pursue happiness, but this does not include making yourself happy by stealing a VCR. Because stealing is a BEHAVIOR. You may sincerely believe that stealing makes you happy, but not entitled to behave as a thief.

Constitutional scholars who claim that the method one uses to have sex should receive constitutional protection can only manipulate the concept of constitutional protection. Claiming that homosexuality equals interracial marriage, or the women's right to vote are incredibly far off the mark. All it comes down to is constitutional protection for the method one uses to have sex and sex has no constitutional protections. You are not guaranteed a right to have sex. There is a right to PROCREATE to have children and homosexuals are incapable of exercising such a right without the cooperation of the opposite sex. Which supports the opponents of same sex marriage.

Does this help.

[Sinanju]

It is simple...


You can choose to be a Baptist, or a Catholic, or a Mormon, or a Buddhist, or a Muslim, or Quabala.... Just ask Madonna...

You can choose to be Heterosexual, or Homosexual, or a Beastial necrophiliac.... Just ask Madonna...

You cannot choose to be an African, or an Asian, or British... Just ask Madonna....

It is simple...

[DesertFox]

Is Sexual Orientation analogous to religion or race for purposes of constitutional protection or should it be made analogous for equal protection or due process protection under the U.S. Constitution? Why or why not is sexual orientation similar such that it should be treated comparably?

No persuasive evidence proves that homosexuality is genetic, therefore it has no standing comparable to race. If homosexuality can conclusively be shown to be genetic then the discussion can be reopened.

If "sexual orientation" is analogous to religion, it ought have no special standing whatsoever under the 1st Amendment lest it be construed as a state religion.

The 14th Amendment already covers sexual orientation.

[Wolfcounsel]

Tell that "professor" to get a life.

[DesertFox]

Actually, this is an excellent chance for students to think these issues thru. With the ACLU after everything decent anymore, it's important that people think thru these matters -- and revisit them periodically -- so that when the slapping-down comes, it won't lack energy.

[Warlady]

Religous freedom is protected under the First amendment. I don't think there is any such protection in our Constitution for sexual preference.

[CzechPrince]

The only thing that bugs me about the whole homosexual thing being a choice exculsively is this: Many gay people go years without admitting it, and even try to be in heterosexual relationships, but don't work for them or they are not attracted to them. A person who is attracted to the same sex, I mean that would have to be some intense theropy, and sometimes that does not even work. Is it me or does anyone else think Environmental factors are the main cause? I read in numerous things (ill try to find them) that a common trait among gay men was that their dad's were either abusive, were not around, or had very dominant mothers. Any thoughts?

[D.Will]

Hi Faith,

In regards to your question 'is sexuality analogous to a person's race or religion', I would have to say no, since I am black. I cannot change my color and had no say in what color I turned out to be other than by virtue of birth.

I had this same conversation with a guy at my job and he believes that sexuality and race are the same thing, however, I find this comparison very offensive to me and all other black people who came before me and fought to win their own freedom and secure rights for their future generations.

I believe that those who say that sexuality and race are the same are just using blacks(who are allowing themselves to be used) to try and normalize their own lifestyle or choice. By using race as a comparison liberals and gays want everyone to believe that being gay is the same as being black: meaning that gay people are not choosing their lifestyle but are genetically predisposed to be gay. This is total crap in my opinion. :nono:

[FaithM]

Thank You for all the opinions.
I am still curious to know more about the religious aspect? I understand that Religion is a private, personal choice that people make for themselves, wouldn't sexual preference be the same in this aspect?
Also, does anyone have any opinions on how they are different? I am not sure if I am getting the whole scope of everything?
Also, does anyone know of any credible sources on the web that cite some sources?
I find that if a person has an opinion different than my professor, they get graded that much harder.
THANKS! I appreciate all your help

[Hottjohn]

Sexual preference is not an immutable characteristic, unlike race or gender. Therefore, no preference should be given. I don't think preference should be given anyway, but what do I know?

[I Love My Country!]

Religious choice = Spiritual
Sexual choice = Physical

How can they be the same?

It's a private, personal choice to be a dope addict, should we compare it to religion as well?

It's a private, personal choice to want to marry your sister, should we compare it to religion as well?

It's a private, personal choice to want to marry 15 women, should we compare it to religion as well?

It's a private, personal choice to want to marry your dog, should we compare it to religion as well?

It's a private, personal choice to want to be a prostitute, should we compare it to religion as well?

It's a private, personal choice to want to swing my di*k in public, should we compare it to religion as well?

It's a private, personal choice to want to marry my mother, should we compare it to religion as well?

It's a private, personal choice to want to like green beans while standing on my head, should we compare it to religion as well?

It's a private, personal choice to support racist groups, should we compare it to religion as well?

I really could go on and on all day, but I'm sure you could do it yourself.

In other words, if we can compare apple to oranges, then there is no stopping us from comparing oranges to grapes, or grapes to apples and so on.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

OK, based on the title of the course, any answers other than "yes" and "heck yeah," will be graded harshly. (You suggested this yourself.)

IMO, "equal protection" does not protect homosexual conduct, because the history of the 14th Amendment does not support such a conclusion. I see nowhere in the debates over passage or ratification of the Amendment any evidence to the contrary.

Warning: I am an originalist. In other words, I believe that words have a limited range in meaning, and that the Constitution means what it says, not what it "should" say. Your instructor will hate my views. You have been warned. :unsmile:

As for the 1st Amendment, it talks about religion, speech, and the press, not sexual orientation. Certainly speech/thoughts/writings about homosexuality are covered by the 1st Amendment, but that doesn't mean homosexual conduct or unions have any protection under it. I don't see any way that homosexuality, or the belief in it, could be considered a religion in the traditional sense of the word, so the free exercise clause does not apply. (The danger, if you will, of going the other way is that you create an almost limitless exception to the rule. That is, anyone and everyone could say that Law X violates their beliefs, because of Reason Y. That construction is one that the words of the amendment will not bear, and thus it must be discarded to the rubbish bin. )

Also, with respect to due process, homosexual conduct is not a traditional liberty (as say, raising one's children), so even under a slightly more loose interpretation of the due process clause that allows for more than procedural due process, it is not considered protected conduct under the originalist POV. (Obviously, the Court found a magical new right to sodomy just last year. I'm sure the creators of the 14th Amendment would be shocked. :unsmile: )