%        File: nava.tex
%     Created: Thu Jul 14 07:00 AM 2005 E
% Last Change: Thu Jul 14 07:00 AM 2005 E
%
\usetheme{Boadilla}
\title{Homosexuality}
\author{Moral Status \& Tolerance}
\date{}

\begin{document}

\maketitle

\begin{frame}
\titlepage
\end{frame}

\section{Three Questions}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Three Separate Questions}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Is homosexuality immoral?
\item How should homosexuality be treated under the law (generally)?
\item Should homosexual couples be allowed to marry?
\end{enumerate}
\end{frame}

These are separate questions.  Answering ``yes'' to 1 does not entail that we should regulate homosexual practices under the law.  While some immoral practices \emph{are} regulated by laws, many are not (e.g., lying, betrayal, etc. are perfectly legal).  The conditions under which we ought to regulate ``immoral'' practices may be controversial, but in general we do so when the practice infringes upon the right of another (e.g., murder), or when the practice produces certain social harms (e.g., drug use).

Note also that answering ``no'' to 1 does not entail that we ought to allow homosexual couples to marry.  Even if we think homosexuality is morally acceptable, we may disapprove or gay marriage on other grounds/ (e.g., We might hold that the purpose of marriage is to foster a solid foundation for having children and raising a family.  Since, without external resources, gay couples cannot have children, marriage cannot serve that purpose for them.  Such claims, of course, are not uncontroversial.)

\section{Nava \& Dawidoff}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Nava \& Dawidoff}
Address question \#2
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Discriminatory Practices}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Sodomy Laws
\item Don't ask/Don't tell policies
\item No legal protection from societal discrimination
\item Exclusion from certain heterosexual goods (e.g., marriage, adoption, etc.)
\end{enumerate}
\end{frame}

Note that sodomy laws have since been declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (as of 2003).

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Relevant Rights at Stake}
\begin{enumerate}
\item The right of privacy
\item Equal protection under the laws
\end{enumerate}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{The Legislation of Morality}
We are justified in legislating morality \emph{only} insofar as the practice in question:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Violates another's rights, or 
\item produces social harms
\end{enumerate}
\end{frame}

They claim that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Gays do not commit sexual abuse more than straits, and
\item family formation is not at risk because of lesbian and gay equality
\end{enumerate}

``Gays and lesbians do not seek the right to be homosexual.  This ``right'' is not one within the authority of government to give.  They are fighting for the right to secure the conditions under which they may lead ordinary civilized lives.''

\section{Horowitz}

Via the threat of lawsuits for discrimination, U.S. is ``increasingly mandating homosexuality''.  There are several consequences that result:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Wherever such laws exist, they will attract homosexuals, lending them political strength in the communities where they reside.
\item Many homosexuals will seek to become gatekeepers, leading to the preference of homosexuals, and harsh anti-gay punishments (e.g., in colleges).
\item They will create market bottlenecks. (Not quite sure what the author is getting at here.  He claims that prices for heterosexuals will he higher and wages lower, but he then goes on to talk about the economic advantages homosexual couples receive if they are given the same benefits as married couples.  Connection?
\item The new legalism will increase heterosexual anger --- and even violence --- toward homosexuals.
\end{enumerate}

Gay activists, by wanting to prohibit things said against them, disregard the free speech of others. (e.g., Articles in a gay tabloid routinely call for removing freedom of speech from anyone alleged to be ``homophobic'').  They also have little respect for right to privacy (e.g., the tabloid \emph{Outweek}).  

\emph{Objection}: Ad hominem attack: Even if these claims were true (and gay activists were being hypocritical), that isn't a reason to claim that the free speech and right of privacy of homosexuals should not be protected. 

\emph{Objection:} That there is a danger of frivolous lawsuits does \emph{not} entail that protections should be eliminated.  

\emph{Objection}: Do his anecdotes accurate represent the gay community in general (or just a handful of extreme examples)?

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Carl F. Horowitz}

\emph{His aim}: Question the legitimacy and integrity of the gay movement.

\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
His criticisms include:
\begin{itemize}
\item A claim of hypocrisy
\item Threat of violence
\item Anti-discrimination laws entail indirect affirmative action
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
Questions to think about:
\begin{itemize}
\item Could anti-discrimination laws lead to discrimination \emph{against} heterosexuals?
\pause
\item Should we (and to what extent ought we to) regulate speech against homosexuals?  
\end{itemize}

\end{frame}

\end{document}