Homosexuality, Morality, and Human RightsIn today s society, there exists a myriad of issues which, whendiscussed, tend to raise the temperature of the citizens proverbialblood. There are a handful of topics that always seem to escalate thistemperature to the boiling point among individuals who earnestlyparticipate in discussion, debate and argument. Some examples of suchdelicate subjects are the death penalty, abortion, and euthanasia. Anissue that has in recent years, begun to command the intensity of theforegoing, is the acceptability of homosexuality in mainstream society.Until recently, homosexuality was considered strictly taboo. If anindividual was homosexual, this revelation was considered a grave secretto be kept from all family, friends, and society at large. However, itseem that society has begun to accept this lifestyle by allowing samesex couples some of the rights afforded heterosexual couples. The ideaof coming out of the closet has moved to the forefront of homosexualindividuals when it used to be the exception. The Government of Canadahas recently passed law making it illegal to discriminate against anindividual s sexual preference. With this in mind, the government wouldthen require all facets of society, including religious communities, towelcome the marriages, adoptions, and families of homosexuals as thoughthey were in no way different from heterosexual ones. It seemsunreasonable that such an authority be involved in legislating theacceptance of an identifiable group that behaves in a manner unbecomingof any moral, decent, and even moderately religious human being, whenour society itself can offer no consensus on such a moral issue. In order to conclude that the government is wrong by legislating, itmust be shown that homosexuality is wrong as well. Many feel that sucha lifestyle is acceptable so long as it is kept in the privacy of one sown home. However, all too often such activity seems to spill over intomainstream society as same sex couples are seen strolling the streetsarm in arm, kissing, and even engaging in unsightly groping. Suchbehaviour is displayed proudly by homosexuals during their various equal rights marches. It seems analogous to lobbying for a new carwhile driving a Ferrari, no one will listen because they are all turnedoff by your actions. Often enough, homosexuals attempt to pick up straight members of their own sex, causing considerable uneasiness.Having to deal with a homosexual on such an insignificant occasion asbuying bread, can easily make one s skin crawl, if not ruin one s day.The feminine voice, dress, coupled with their feminine movements, canprovide considerable incentive to avoid such people. The foregoingdetails the general appearance of homosexuals. There are of courseexceptions to this rule, and these members of the homosexual group arenot quite as prevalent in every day life. It cannot be denied thatviewing this activity will offend many, if not the majority ofmainstream society. The allowance of homosexual activity, providing itis kept from the public eye, has for the most part failed in itsinitiative. Few straight people could truly say they have never beenexposed to such moral erosion. Such erosion becomes even more prevalent when the issues of adoptionand marriage are considered. Even those homosexuals that do not paradeabout in joyous display of their sexuality are included in those wishingto become parents and spouses under the law. The argument often heard is that homosexuals are not perverts, that thechildren they raise will be fine. They claim that homosexuality in andof itself does not make one an inherently poor parent. This seems quiteridiculous when you consider the issue from the child s point of viewrather than that of the homosexual, whom would obviously be thrilled toraise a child. The child however, would grow up with his personality,lifestyle, and attitude being formed by homosexuals. The problem hereis that such input from a decidedly unpopular point of view might notproperly prepare the child for the world to come. Learning life througha homosexual s eyes can do little but cause future confusion for thechild when he or she realizes that people are not always raised by samesex couples. These facts do not change when there is a single parentsituation. Children will be confused when he or she notices otherparents acting vastly different from their own. Moreover, withmainstream society being a collection of straight parents raisingchildren, allowing homosexuals to raise children would leave the dooropen to unending ridicule and ostracizing of children at the hands oftheir peers. It seems quite cruel to allow children to experience sucha troubling situation simply to appease the wishes of homosexuals. The issue of marriage involving homosexuals is important as well.Although homosexuals rationalize that such unions are reasonable, andworthy of recognition, such adherence would only serve to undermine theentire essence of marriage. Marriages are unions of two people underGod and the idea is that the two individuals will start a family andprosper. It can be said that several straight couples never havechildren, relegating them to the level of homosexual marriages in such aregard. The point lost in this argument is that at any time in themarriage, health permitting, the heterosexual couple could havechildren. If the homosexual couple wanted children, they would be out

of luck unless they were able secure some kind of adoption. It does notseem that the paramount concern is having children in a marriage, butwhether the couple involved could ever achieve the family status.Homosexuals simply cannot. The next aspect of homosexuality to contemplate is that of its moralacceptability. The common argument against any moral intervention isthat homosexual tendencies are something certain individuals are bornwith. It is quite difficult to accept such a claim when it isconsidered that so many people are born without such a genetic trait.For this argument to be valid, one would have to accept that everyhomosexual on the planet has been born into a pre-existing web ofphysiological short comings. This argument is clearly false when theelement of choice is introduced. Over the years there have been severalstraight individuals who have become homosexual. For no apparentreason, they simply began living the gay lifestyle. If they were bornwith a predisposition, it is difficult to understand how or why any partof these individuals lives were spent as heterosexual. Of course it ispossible that these people were always gay, but simply had not come toterms with their sexual orientation. However, the idea thathomosexuality is genetic is weakened further when the foregoing iscoupled with the fact that many gay individuals have becomeheterosexual. If one is destined to be homosexual from birth, how doesthat individual then cease all homosexual behaviour in favour of theheterosexual lifestyle? It seems clear that such change in behaviourover time can easily be attributed to a distinct choice. If it were abiological issue there would be no room for choice. It is not enough tosuggest that these individuals were simply attempting to conform tosociety s expectations, as it would be difficult to find a heterosexualthat would become gay if society deemed it correct. With the said arguments in mind, it seems obvious that homosexuals arechoosing a lifestyle that is inherently unnatural and immoral. One neednot look far to realize that members of the same sex are not sexuallycompatible. The basic, fundamental function of human beings isreproduction. Homosexuals cannot possibly reproduce with their sexualbehaviour in mind. If it is natural to reproduce, then the homosexuallifestyle which inhibits human reproduction must be, by definition,unnatural. Moreover, if homosexuality were in fact natural andreproduction ceased, the human race could not sustain itself by leavingthe responsibility of future generations to homosexual individuals. The final argument against homosexuality concerns its moralramifications. Some might feel that no one has the right to tellanother how to live. However, this seems absurd in that society needssome moral fabric holding it together. One need not be reminded of whatthe world would be like if everyone was permitted to behave as theyplease. Simply by considering the above arguments concerning the gaylifestyle, it seems clear that such activity has no place in a moralsociety. However, when society itself has eroded to the point where itis commonplace for children to bring guns to school, it does not seemreasonable to expect morality to be running rampant among individuals.What does seem reasonable is to consult some of the oldest writingsknown to man: And you must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with awoman. It is a detestable thing (Leviticus 18:22). The Bible itself, commonly know as God s Word, tells mankind thathomosexuality is wrong. It seems difficult to imagine a greaterauthority than that of God. It seems clear that our own creator frownsheavily upon homosexuality. With this in mind, how then can thegovernment consider legislating society into acceptance of a lifestylethat God has condemned?The government has little place introducing legislation concerning thehuman rights of homosexuals for a number of reasons. Any legislationwould gravely affect any society in which it is introduced and thatsociety ought to have the ability to protect itself from what it deemsinappropriate, wrong, unnatural, and immoral. Homosexuality is noexception, as it is such a personally charged issue that cannot beforced upon people. Accepting homosexuality as a human right is notakin to accepting the latest tax increase. It is an issue that sparksan ingrained feeling that is acquired through religion, observance, orsome other avenue. Regardless, it exists, and acceptance of it shouldnot arbitrarily be forced upon people by elected officials.Homosexuality is something that transcends the legislation process inthat God, through the Bible, has already legislated for us. Nogovernment s proverbial measuring stick of what is right and wrong canpossibly compare to that of our creator. To conclude, it can be said that homosexuality is an issue unlike mostothers facing society, when the emotions it stirs are considered. Thegovernment would only serve an injustice to legislate homosexuality intothe human rights laws. People should not have the right to offendothers in public, raise children in a fashion detrimental to the child smental health, have recognized marriages without the physiologicalcapability of raising a family, behave in an unnatural manner thatoffends the moral codes of society and that of God. To allow such aright would allow individuals to choose which rights they have, andwhich ones they do not, therefore undermining the idea behind protectionof human rights. Protection provides shelter from discrimination andscrutiny for aspects in life we cannot change such as age, gender, andrace. Homosexuality simply does not qualify for such protection.