Dear Ake:


The issue is this: a civil status has been defined on exclusionary grounds. The exclusion is based on something you define as bad behavior, and therefore find perfectly acceptable. According to the scientific information, however, there is strong evidence that this exclusion is not in fact based on behavior, but is based on a condition which is partially genetic and partially cultural, rather than an actual choice.

It is of course true that deciding to be as one is instead of act differently in order to cling to a normative profile is a choice, but I think you will agree that forcing people to denytheir own natures is probably not a good implementation of "freedom under law".

Furthermore I see no hard evidence to support your assertion that being homosexual, or living with another homosexual person in a committed relationship, is "destructive".

It was argued, long ago and in a different context, that people of color should accept their place in society, and that if they did not, they, too, were acting destructiuvely by upsetting the status quo.

You have made the same argument about a different group of legally excluded citizens, but instead of basing it on color or race, you base it on their sexual orientation.

You persist in doing this in spite of the fact that there is no identifiable possible way that the marriage of two people of the same gender could have a negative effect on you, accept by reason of your own attitude only.

Thus, the parallel between your attitudes toward "them" and the earlier attitudes of racially-motivated prejudicially minded vociferous citizens is, to my view, particularly apt.

In both cases an argument is made to exclude a group of citizens from certain civil rights because of a condition which in fact is an innate part of their nature andf is in fact not harmful to others in and of itself.

That's what the one has to do with the other. Thanks for asking.



A