The issue, succinctly stated, is simply, whether, or not, a self-generated, public pronouncement of a private sexual behavior should be entitled under law to special preference in housing or employment considerations. Furthermore, the indicated sexual behavior provides no objective benefit to the individual, those potentially forced to act in deference to such a pronouncement, or to society in general. Additionally, the indicated sexual behavior statistically drives up health care costs, which are a major concern to employers and the state.
Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (According to the American Psychological Association [APA] the term, sexual orientation, is a description of feelings.) Feelings do not control the behavior of a mentally healthy, adult human being.
Any human behavior (not driven by autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.
Therefore, homosexual behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.
If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal regulations, i.e., laws, social stigma, etc., as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc. Furthermore, if homosexual behavior is voluntary, it has no more claim to special rights or considerations than does pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc., i.e., none.
If homosexual behavior is a psychosis, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure, just as are nymphomania, drug addiction, etc.
The potentially negative impacts of homosexual behavior on employer health care costs are statistically well established. Forcing employers to knowingly hire individuals who voluntarily engage in high-risk behavior drives up the cost of providing health care coverage to the employer. The employer who is mandated by law to make such hires, must then decide whether to lower or eliminate health care benefits to all other employees to accommodate the potentially increased costs of the high risk behavior group.
In summary, a clear definition of homosexuality combined with statistically valid, medical information establishes that such behavior is economically detrimental to any employer who includes health care coverage as an employee benefit. Furthermore, the increased costs of employers dropping significant amounts of employee health care to Medicare and Medicaid or other government sponsored health care would make such a move extremely detrimental to the state and all of its taxpayers. Therefore, it is unwise, completely apart from any religious, moral or emotional arguments, for any state to allow any of its subordinate governmental entities to change current discrimination protections to include homosexual practitioners as a protected class.
I always wondered why it isn’t considered a “dangerous life style” like smoking is due to increased health care costs.
However, I am sure any liberal would tell you that it isn’t a choice - it is an orientation - that fits their narrative better.
Didn’t you hear - they just discovered the first gay caveman? He was buried with things that are normally used when burying a woman. Sooo, he had to be gay..:)