The following is a message I wrote on a thread on another message board, reguarding descriminatory legislation against homosexuals. To see the origional thread click here : Well, this thread seems to be full of straw man arguments, and various other wanderings from the original topic which was bought up, so forgive me if my own post seems a little out of place, or as if it has deviated from the thread’s natural flow of decay. This is a long post, I know, but I would ask that you give me the courtesy of reading all the way through it and making sure you comprehend what I am trying to say, and to please ask questions about, or offer challenges to anything I have said. In the next few paragraphs I shall outline why it is not a waste of time to challenge anti-sodomy laws, or any other laws which are designed intentionally to attack homosexuals, and in fact why this is something that not only needs to be done, but is the only way things can really go at this point. Perhaps the most important idea relating to these laws, is that of personal sovereignty, a concept upon America this nation was founded, and which most modern western societies, value. Personal Sovereignty is the idea that a person has the right to do anything that he or she wishes to, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others, or conflict with the rules of the standing authoritarian body, in this case the government. Another key aspect is how power works in the western world. In most modern western governments our government, and the people in power are supposed to rule through a system of rational legal authority, that being the idea that they are in power because they have a right to be there, that they are the logical choice a following them is right, because they are also bound by the obligation to work for those who they govern. Under this kind of system, a person can be assumed to have any rights which are not prohibited by the government, which is supposed to pass and enforce laws with the best interest of its people in mind, and a person also has any rights out side of these laws, which do not infringe upon the rights of others. Also in this system it would technically be an abuse of power for the government to pass or enforce a law which infringes upon the idea of personal sovereignty, prohibiting behavior which does not infringe on the rights of others, is a move toward totalitarianism, and away from the idea of rational legal authority. In this instance anti-sodomy laws are taking away a right which is inherent to individuals, and which infringes on their personal sovereignty, which goes against one of the ideas that makes up the foundation of western society. Without the government, and without other people, who have no steak in this sort of activity between to consenting people, they would be free to carry it out with no penalty to anyone, save themselves in certain instances. There is no rational legal authority which would allow anyone to make a rule governing who can have sex with whom, when, or how. As such these laws are immoral, unjust and outside the realm of rational legal authority, as such they are invalid. The fact that they are invalid can be seen in most states where such laws are not enforced, most people have a sort of unspoken understanding that this sort of law is not to be enforced, as it goes against the idea of what a law is supposed to be in western society. However other laws which discriminate against homosexuals, and which follow these same patterns are enforced regularly. As an example I would like to bring up the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which was signed into federal law by Bill Clinton. This law sets out federal governmental standards for what constitutes a marriage, that being only a union between one man and one woman. It also provides provisions stating that a state which has laws against homosexual marriages, does not need to honor a marriage certificate which was issued by another state (the idea that this provision violates the constitution’s full faith and credit clause, is not the topic I wish to argue here, though I realize that is a fairly glaring and obvious point one could make, I don’t wish to argue it here). In practical effect this law has nullified all existing homosexual marriages in the united states, and makes illegal any homosexual marriage anywhere in any state, and as such refuses homosexual couples the nearly 300 benefits, and statuses associated with having a legal marriage certificate, benefits which are still afforded to heterosexual couples. So, what does all of this setup amount to? We now have a situation in this nation, in which we have a group of people, who are discriminated against by laws which are unjust and irrelevant by the very makeup of our society. Why, then are they still enforced, and why is this an issue? The answer to that may sound a bit melodramatic, but if you understand the situation this far, you should be able to understand this next point: Our rights are being held from us at the end of a gun. Again, I realize this last statement probably sounds a bit sensationalist, but it is no exaggeration, and I will try to take great care in explaining this concept. On one side, we have people who are rationally and rightfully entitled to certain benefits and liberties, they would have them already, and likely be taking them for granted at this very moment (As it should be) if not for the fact that there is another group of people standing in their way. The people whose rights are being denied are homosexuals, those standing in their way are the United States government, and those American citizens who hold views that homosexuality is wrong, and that they have some sort of right, to intrude on the rights of homosexuals in order to stop it (hence giving power and a certain measure of validity to discriminatory legislation). This situation creates a conflict of interest. It is a human beings natural imperative to ensure that he has the means to live his life, and do it in the manner of his choosing, to seek fulfillment and satisfaction, and some measure of feeling that he has succeeded in his life, however we have people who now will now not let that happen for these people. They stand in the way of people’s fulfillment, denying them basic rights, which, if they were not standing in the path toward the attainment of these goals, the now oppressed people would otherwise have every ability and right to attain. It is only natural that the oppressed people will fight back and try to get what is rightfully theirs. If you stand in the path between one and ones rights, and claim that it is not your problem, then you can be sure that that person will make it your problem, that is why we see so many challenges of discriminatory legislation. I put all of this in such simple terms, because I’m sure you can see how they can be broadly applied to many situations, even the American revolution follows this same pattern, take a look through history and you will see this formula over and over again when revolutions have taken place. Now, as it applies to the current situation, and why our rights are held from us at gun point: If a homosexual, were to look and see that his rights, which should otherwise be his, are being blocked by the arbitrary laws of another, and wished to challenge that person, knowing that he is being kept from what is rightfully his, making his case and petitioning to the holders and abusers of power, to lift their rules which deny him something which they have no right to take from him, as we have already seen, he can lose. If he is still denied his rights after challenging those who keep them from him, this still does not make him wrong, it does not make those rights any less his, nor does it bring him any closer to them, and as such we still have a conflict of interest, only a much larger one now that his method of recourse has proved completely ineffectual. What he can do next is simply try to claim his rights, against the will of the governing body, in this case they will surely attempt to arrest him, if he then tries to resist this, as he is not a criminal, and has broken no valid laws, then he will be physically forced into submission, and if he meets the authoritative body in this low, fighting back at each level they wish to confront him on, as is his right, and duty to himself, the only inevitable consequence is that he will be shot dead, and this is the only outcome for someone who would assert that his rights are his, that no one has a right to keep them from him, and who stays consistent in this assertion, and fights back without fail. So, in the end what it comes down to, is that that which is standing between homosexuals and their rights, at this time, are men with guns, and I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions about that fact.
