Argument 5: Homosexuality is a Choice/Immoral.

The reasoning of the rightist argument that homosexuals should have unequal protection under the law finds refuge in the notion that homosexuality is somehow a choice – the same way that stealing or lying is a choice. They are each immoral, and we shouldn’t reward immoral behavior. So gays should not be extended the right to marry (or the same protections under the law generally).

What if homosexuality is a choice? Isn’t religion also a choice? As an American, I have inherited the right to define my own humanity. A Christian rightist can define their humanity by choosing not to be gay. But they make that choice for religious reasons. Why should my rights be restricted for making a different choice? Would Christian rightists legislate restricting the rights of Jews, Muslims, or Scientologists? No such legislation would be allowed under the First Amendment.

I contend that the First Amendment binds the government to respect and protect our religious choices. As sexual preference can be a religious choice, the government must under the first amendment respect and protect the sexual preference we choose.

The only basis for discriminating against homosexuals is religious belief, which happens to be the only reason for discriminating against Muslims, Jews, or any other person who adheres to a belief system that differs from one’s own. Homosexuals are a group particularly vulnerable to religious discrimination and equal protection under the law must extend especially to them if for no other reason than the protection of religious freedom. If we follow the religious rightist’s reasoning, religion and sexuality are choices equally. Both are protected by our founding documents.