You Have the Right to Remain Ignorant

...or do you? Also - and I freely admit that I could be wrong here - where, exactly in the Bible does it say that homosexuality is wrong? Is it in the whole Sodom and Gomorrah story? Like, is that the only instance? Or are there more? I don't seem to remember any parables about Jesus casting stones at gays, but I could be wrong.

But setting that aside, is this a valid argument? In some ways I find it similar to the lawsuits and legislation (such as Oklahoma HB 2107 and - HOLY SHIT - New York Assembly Bill 8036) demanding that intelligent design be taught in schools with the same emphasis as evolution. I remember watching a Penn & Teller Bullshit! episode about the debate, where parents and activists would say over and over, "We just want to present both theories and let kids decide," and being struck by the hypocrisy. Kids aren't allowed to decide whether or not sex is right for them (abstinence is the only option, no teaching safe sex), whether or not certain books are damaging or subversive (banned book lists which remain all over the Western world), and yet suddenly they are supposed to be able to distinguish between two competing theories of life that, in the final equation, can never be proved or disproved. And the oddest thing about the debate is that there is room for both theories - evolution set in motion by an original creator. Isn't it odd that science has become something of a religion in and of itself, demanding a strict adherence to dogmatic principles? Why is it that some people seem to believe that it's either god and no science or science and no god (meaning science becomes the new god)? The reality is, there are some things science can explain and religion can't; conversely, there are some things religion (or spirituality, if you are averse to the connotation of organized religion and dogma) can explain or guide you in that science cannot.

I've gotten a bit far afield here; back to the California case. I think most people would agree that, yes, everyone has the right to their religious beliefs, no matter how repugnant we might find them personally (fucking crazy Mormons). But where is the line between private faith and public expression? Why do some Christians believe that practicing their religion requires them to publicly denounce the lifestyle choices of those around them ("Let he who is without sin...")? And is it just me, or is it only religions in the Judeo-Christian tradition (Christianity and Islam) that feel this way? I mean, you never see a monk hanging out in Times Square screaming, "REPENT! ONLY BUDDHA IS THE PATH TO NIRVANA! CHANGE YOUR WAYS OR YOU'RE ALL GOING TO BE COWS IN THE NEXT LIFE!" What's up with that?

I guess what is central to the case (and to the continuing bias against homosexuality that the Church has) is this:

Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor responds to such criticism angrily. He says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different — a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.

Is homosexuality a choice or not? I think most people who actually know and have spent time with homosexuals (read: any New Yorker) would come down on the side of the nots. It is only the ignorant (or the terrified closeted, which in my experience is what most anti-gay Christian activists really are) who truly believe that homosexuals have some sort of choice, that they can just flip a switch and suddenly stop finding members of the same sex attractive. And you know what? Those people can keep believing that till they go blue in the face. What they don't have is the right to harass others; an individual's rights cannot extend to affect another individual's rights unless it is demonstrably in the common interest, which it is not in this case.