factbat.com

In a land where freedom and basic inalienable rights are the definitive monikers of American society, one cannot ignore the fact that some people still find themselves languishing in an environment that is inhospitable to them.

Expressing one's beliefs through freedom of speech or self determination can, in many cases, reduce one's opportunities, or set their personal aspirations out of reach.

Often, the controversial figure finds their self, and their right to self determination, under attack by the very thing that is expect to protect them from discrimination.

In America the system is such that it can create perceived inequities for those who are convinced that the promise of equality grants them the right to demand that others accept, and even support, their personal choices.

The United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, while certainly documents that guarantee freedom and inalienable rights to each and every citizen individually, were primarily drafted as written mechanisms which could be expected to direct and protect the nation as a whole.

These documents are declarations of liberty and autonomy that are said to be sustained by truths that are found "to be self evident", and they do not exist as personal beliefs or individual assessments of opinion.

The enumerated protections within the Constitution, and which are present in the Bill of Rights, are not those which can be invoked by an individual without it be shown that any such invocation is concordant with the most important facet of the promise of freedom inured by these documents: that no individual's rights shall ever be allowed to either directly or indirectly infringe upon, or promote an environment that is found to infringe upon, another's inalienable right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

In the realm of Civil Rights, any laws intended to further this bill must be confined to those which are found to protect all citizens equally. To be clear, any prohibition of discrimination against any one person must, in turn, provide equal protection for all people or it is not legally binding under the Constitution

Laws enacted to protect a persons rights based on gender or race are those which satisfy this requirement, and are such that they prohibit discrimination against, or exclusions of, persons based on defining human characteristics that cannot be naturally altered.

Conversely, laws which are enacted to protect a persons rights based solely on their choice to engage in homosexuality do not contain this required element. The Constitution only prohibit's acts which can be shown to infringe upon the "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that can be experienced by all persons equally. And this basic tenet could actually cause the law to sway more decisively in favor of prohibiting homosexuality if, and when, any such acts be determined socially regressive to a demonstrable degree.

However, the fight to protect homosexuals from abuse and violence is just one of many social issues that require clear boundaries be defined, based on Constitutional values, in order to prevent the resulting legislative measures from creating an equally repressive environment of unjustifiable bias against a new group.

There have been various backlashes experienced by numerous people in America as a result of Civil Rights laws that are designed to protect against racial and gender discrimination, but are sometimes misused or redefined to justify furthering discrimination in the workplace.

As for the subject of racial equality, the common belief is that Civil Rights laws are basically necessary to prevent discrimination against members of specific races whom were oppressed and exploited in the past.

However, simply the fact that the need for racial equality was determined to be a "self evident" truth during a time in American history when laws were necessary to emancipate and protect minority groups, does not constrain the issue to a realm of bias that favor's those races, or any particular race.

The right to racial equality extends just as openly to white people - whom are generally believed, however unwittingly, to be members of a privileged group - as it does to black people, whom are often considered - again, however unwittingly - to be members of an underprivileged group.

Furthermore, a person's nationality has also been found to play a significant role in determining one's ability to exist equitably as part of even their own racial group, and thus has been determined to be a proponent of human distinction that must also be Constitutionally protected from discrimination.

As for the never ending "battle of the sexes" pervading every society, the need for humans to cohabitate and collaborate within an environment that often requires either gender to assume roles that appear beyond their prospective capabilities - largely based on traditional ideology - has required laws that respect and promote gender equality, thereby cultivating an atmosphere which respects and rewards males and females equally.

Recognizing women's right to vote, and protecting their right to choose where they work are not the only reason there are laws against gender bias. It is just as socially destructive and demoralizing to discriminate against men, as it is to discriminate against women.

There are exceptions, of course. Such as gender discrimination that is reserved to actions which seek to protect that which is not shared equally between the sexes. Such as legislation aimed at protecting pregnant women from discrimination in the workplace. The fact that women are designed to nurture a fetus, and therefore retain specific authority as to sexual consent, including choosing whether or not they will become pregnant, laws are necessary to prevent discrimination against them based on their choice, or the results of such a choice.

Moreover, rape is not only illegal and abhorrent in every context, it is highly unconstitutional, since no woman can be legally impregnated against her will, or be forced to abort a pregnancy.

What Constitutes a Legitimate Individual Right

Primarily, any legitimate individual right is that which can be invoked by any person, at any time, with the same level of effective protection against whatever abuse that right can reasonably be expected to prohibit; regardless of race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or disability.

As pertains the actual reasoning behind the creation of any and all individual rights outlined in the United States Constitution - regardless of the specific nature of a particular inequity, or any personal perspective upon which it may evolve - they are all simulative statutes of governance over personal autonomy that exude results which are eventually felt by the entire society. And this or any other nation is held to dire consequences should any law be enacted which shall deny any right that is found to be "self evident", as this is a clear denial of the rights of all persons.

Logically, this must also Include protection of the rights of those things on the planet that are found to cohabitate within, and contribute to, the environment that humans now find themselves a part of.

The recognition that each and every individual contribution within a society is inexorably reflected upon the entire sociological structure is why treason is found to be such an egregious crime, thus warranting severe penalties. This type of personalized betrayal exists in a realm that is, without exception, an attack on the very structure of an entire nation, and thus is an attack on all who pledge their allegiance to it. Furthermore, Congress is the only entity granted the Constutional authority to define treason.

How Gay Rights Fail to Satisfy the Requirements of a Legitimate Individual Right

The statutory mechanisms created to protect against racial and gender discrimation satisfy, in every way, the parameters of evidence - as defined by those things which can be empirically proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And they have been shown to extend equitably across all relevant boundaries known to exist within the human social structure.

Conversely, laws designed to protect and promote homosexuality do not cross all social boundaries, or even all human boundaries, equitably. Neither does homosexuality exude any broad inference toward the manifestation, or reflection, of a truth that is found to be "self evident". Gay Rights do not contain the critical element of "commonality" required when enacting laws that protect the rights of all citizens within a society, and certainly not in the interest of social equality.

Gay Rights are a demand for personal privileges that do not extend to all persons. They exist as a bias for one very specific group only. And this group exists in utter contrast to the basic social mechanism of human survival: heterosexuals.

Furthermore, most homosexuals often display complete disregard for basic human design functions, of which no person can logically deny or defy without admitting that there could exist, as a result, repercussions of a particularly odious nature.

Regardless of the fact that many proponents of homosexuality argue that procreation is a negligible concern, there is not one human being on this planet who can conclusively determine that any such clear violation of natural human functions will not, at some point in the future, present mankind with a crisis that will be unmanageable due to recidivist genomic factors that could manifest in response to excessive repression by a homosexual majority. Especially considering that some may find it conscionable to tip the debate in their favor through genetic manipulation.

The Dangers of Preferential Rights That are Not Shared by All Citizens

Preferential rights are those rights which are found only to be specific to one group of people, or one specific classification of individual. Such as a homosexual person, or a rich person, or even a specific ethnicity such as a white person, or a black person.

These laws do not exist in compliance with the basic design function parameters of human beings. But instead are typically concocted by various religious groups whom follow a doctrine that is solely based on the allocation of rights as set out by the teachings reported to have been given them by their god.

Refusing to structure laws in strict compliance with the basic design function parameters of the human species sets the stage for a vast array of unsustainable, unmanageable and increasingly destructive mechanisms of social interaction that will manifest escalating conflicts which could often culminate in naked aggression, either within the society, and on the scale of a full fledged civil war. Or against another society, again to the extreme manifestation of full scale war.

Technology is advancing at an exponential rate. And the relevance of natural, human biological functions will become expressly more profound as the envelope is pushed to its limits. And there will certainly be pivotal moments in the future of mankind, where choosing facts over factions will resoundingly decide the fates of millions.

It can be clearly proven that the dual nature that balances the forces of this Universe, and the cyclic effects determined by the attraction of opposites, is the primary mechanism which has secured the future of humanity, and enabled the evolution of the species to occur along a fine line of the divine cosmic schematic.

Historical events, and scientific analyses, have both shown that any dictatorial, personally biased, mono-elective, or one-sided approach to just about anything has inexorably doomed such respective structure, and its confluent constituents, to catastrophic consequences.

The divergent realm of heterosexuality is not merely reserved to the creation of another human life, but rather is the critical, social dichotomy of complimentary, opposing forces which drives the species to evolve upon a trajectory that requires cooperation with a known opposite. Thereby pushing the natural human survival instinct into accord with elements of personal austerity that teaches humanity to seek the promotion of others as a means of sustainability, and indelibly employing any number of the many alternatives that would otherwise have gone unnoticed.

There will always be an insufficient number of finite variances available to that which is confined to a single, self-styled mode of operation. Homo, or mono, structures are absent the stringent parallax that promotes a viewpoint capable of recognizing redundant components necessary to prevent utter annihilation should any critical portion of such structure fail to perform.

Healthy, functional and adroit societies require persons that are willing and able to engage, at all levels, the divergently-cooperative structures of co-committed opposites. And forgo the temptation to manipulate the process through self-gratifying, deviant behaviors that are easily maintained due to guaranteed conviviality's, such as the physical and emotional relationship between homosexuals.

In large part, gay rights activist are not seeking the attraction of opposites, nor voicing concerns for the nation as a whole as pertains the need to "cooperate" with expected opposing forces.

Proponents of homosexuality also consistently take the position that a refusal to engage the opposite sex - as an equal gender, wholly legitimate and necessary in all facets, and on all levels of human interaction - carries with it no negative consequences. And more often than not, homosexuals will refuse to allow themselves to show any concern for such negative effects even when they are shown to be apparent.

Gay rights activists typically stand behind statements of personal determination such as "we will continue to fight for what we believe in" as in a recent video where protesters were upset that the Tennessee Senate passed Bill SB49, a law prohibiting homosexuality to be taught as part of the curriculum in sex education courses in that state's public schools.

How Government is Overstepping its Constitutional Bounds in the Interest of Promoting Gay Rights

The government's push for political correctness in speech, and Gay rights, as a part of legislation expected to promote acceptance of homosexuality, is such that it expresses the government's intent to show clear favoritism, and even go so far as to recognize an established belief structure that is tantamount to a religion.

This is a clear violation of the first amendment, wherein it states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Homosexuality is by-and-large an "establishment of religion" in that it exists in practice alone, and is based solely on a doctrine bound to a belief, rather than based on truths that are found to be "self evident".

Congress is not granted the authority, under the Constitution, to either condone or condemn the act of homosexuality. Neither can the government prohibit anyone from engaging in either. If one is unwilling to support or condone the act of homosexuality in any way, then they have the right to do so. Even if that means denying a person a job based on the fact that they are homosexual.

Neither does the government possess the authority to determine, or delineate, what citizens will accept as proper behavior within the society. Nor do they have the right to tell people what to like or not like.

However, regardless of what the Constitution commands legislator to do, it is becoming more and more common to find government promoting an environment that favors the desires of homosexuals over the rights of the society as a whole. And at times, outright demanding that homosexuality be lauded as an equally legitimate alternative to heterosexuality. Some federal legislators are attempting to promote the teaching of homosexual behaviors in public schools, and they have no constitutional right to do anything of the sort.

Legislators, fueled by a desire to win votes by any means possible - and often spurred by efforts to protect their own lifestyles, as they expose themselves, choosing to be openly homosexual - are even going so far as to attempt to debase the very foundation of marriage by stripping it of its core facilitation wherein it is designed to promote and protect the rights of children - which can only be produced through a heterosexual union - under the auspices of the truth "found to be self evident" throughout history, wherein familial posterity has been an essential facet of human survival.

As for the courts, far too many legal sophists - with their perverse definition of freedom - are attempting to redefine the law by changing the meaning of words to support whatever position their clients are determined to force upon the public at large. And they are, far too often, being allowed to ignore the "evidence", and persuade magistrates - who rule absent the Constitutionally required element of prudence, through peer review - to offer mere "judicial opinions" that exude a clear bias where none otherwise could, would, or should, exist.

The Constitution of the United States is such that it provides for the prohibition of acts that are found to be those which abuse, exploit, debase or in any way degrade one's ability to exist, and are written in clear language that is expressly simple in its determinations and definitions, and based on nothing more than that which is found to be "self evident"; nothing more, nothing less.

Therefore, when intending to elucidate the mind-frame in which the rights set-out in the Constitution were conceived, and the manner in which they were composed, all inferences much naturally be bound to extrusions of like evidence. And the unfortunate fact is that homosexuality - according to all the truths that humans "find to be self evident" - exists as an entirely deviant behavior that is not constrained by any of the "checks and balances" this species has come to understand are crucial to properly disseminating the currency of human social interaction, and setting limits that can protect the species from aberrant mechanisms with the capability of catastrophically destabilize the structure of civilization.

What is imperative is for Americans to fully analyze each and every facet of homosexuality, and conclusively determine the negative effects it has, and can have, on all parts of the society. The conversation on the subject of homosexuality, gay rights and gay marriage must progress logically, directed by stringent objectivity, absent any influence by individual preference if America has any expectation of creating a lasting respect of each and every citizen who calls this nation home.

The future is not a place which has ever been hospitable to anyone who has dared enter its reticular realms through reciprocal portals that were unlocked by keys fashioned with materials which are absent the elemental "truths we find to be self evident".

Reference:

Coming Out video, 22 May 2011; nytimes.com @ http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/23/us/20110523-coming-out.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1