The recent speech of Yvette Schneider has sparked a decent amount of discussion related to the controversial topic of homosexuality. However, as it often seems with The Dartmouth (with great encouragement from a very vocal liberal population), the scales appear unbalanced to portray only one, extremely slanted side. Albeit popular to the College community here, many will find that throughout the United States a rather conservative counterpoint exists, and in all probability would have lauded the hosting of such a speaker as Schneider. So let me ask the "other" side to climb down from their "heterosexist and heterophobic" high horse and listen to a true vox clamantis in deserto for this day and age.
I will not invoke our Creator's Name, freedom of speech, or the Holocaust to justify my opinion -- although I reserve the right to explore the fascinating correlation made by the opposition between racial minorities and the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community (hereafter referred to as "opposing party"). Considering that the largest population of the homosexual community is white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant and male-oppressed as they say? I don't think so. Here are some of the fallacies that abound in the opposing party viewpoint.
One fallacy is that sexual orientation is often assumed to be inherent in nature -- why do I make this statement? A crucial point of the opposing party tautology is that sexual orientation is inherent and therefore cannot change. Anthropologists agree that one of the most fundamental characteristics of the human species is the instincts for food/drink, shelter and sexual reproduction -- inherent in humans and their desire to survive and propagate. But does this equate or have anything to do with sexual orientation? (An emphatic "No" might be required here). Anthropologists might conclude that sexual orientation has everything to do with "how" an individual chooses to engage in the sexual act, and therefore has more to do with cultural characteristics and not genetic makeup. On the other hand, reproduction is within our genetic makeup. This is based on the simple fact, that biologically, humans propagate heterosexually in their natural state. We do have the technology to reproduce artificially (by definition, unnatural), but the point remains that sexual orientation is not inherent and exclusive of our inherent urge to propagate. Not one study exists that conclusively proves that humans are born with their sexual orientation. I will remind the opposing party that "proclivity" to homosexual behavior in a person's genetic composition is not the same as inherent. Because I have a proclivity to anger and violence, that does not make me a murderer.
A closely linked assumption to this argument is the opposing party's assertion that arguments against homosexual behavior is tantamount to racial discrimination. As a Hispanic male who has experienced real racial discrimination, the constant affiliation with racial minority groups for the sake of their political agenda is offensive. Temporal qualities such as sexual orientation are not equivalent to being born Jewish, African, Hispanic or even disabled. Permanent qualities like color of skin or birth disabilities are much more obvious and a greater obstacle than any they purport to endure. To concede that an individual is born "GLBT" is not only offensive, it's utterly inaccurate. This is a critical point. This is not about inalienable rights granted to all people -- it's about legislating morality, belief values, and cultural systems by intimidation and deceit. Sexual orientation is learned (as are all cultural values), and this is evident by the fact that it DOES quite often change, as in the case of Schneider.
We often hear and read that if we hold a belief system, set of morals, or values that contradict the GLBT lifestyle then it must be that we are homophobic and heterosexist -- convenient terms for the opposing party to flag about as a means to intimidate those less assertive. Yet their slander is the epitome of hypocrisy, a depiction of heterophobism and homosexism in its ardor to crush and insult all those who stand in their way. Yes, terms like bigotry, racism and unrequited hatred are showered upon unsuspecting targets -- like deer within the shining headlights of a homosexual agenda under the guise of "diversity, tolerance and civil rights." Such hypocrisy is further exemplified by the opposing party's absolute detestation of those that think otherwise -- their lust to squelch speech forum for any rational testimony. Emotional appeals, accusations, slander, and name-calling abound in any arena where facts do not hold the basis of legitimate debate.
I say live and let live, but it seems to me the opposing party isn't simply satisfied with this philosophy. What evidence do we have for this? Well, the Massachusetts public school system is now embroiled in a debate on whether to instruct school children that homosexuality is an alternative -- worse yet, whether to utilize/manipulate our children to question their sexual identity with brochures entitled "Are you Gay?" Or that it's necessary to legislate, even force, morality and belief systems contrary to our religion such as in the state of Vermont. Separation of Church and State is a two-way street. No, the opposing party would have it so every fabric of healthy morality is stripped from our society and force fed to the masses. The fact is, the homosexual community is afforded every civil right that any single citizen in America holds. I state the religious right, Bible thumping, caucus is abhorrent for trying to force feed religion down our throats, but then the homosexual, liberal left is no better and just as much a threat.
