The regional government of Tuscany, Italy, is teaching people that, because homosexuality is not a choice, gays and lesbians should not have to face discrimination.
Because a heterosexual has no choice, they enjoy freedom from discrimination. We know a homosexual has no choice and so may also enjoy freedom from discrimination. Gender identity isn’t chosen either.
But this is not enough. The premise may not be sufficiently demanding our humanity.
Insisting upon tolerance, equality and freedom for each other need not be justified.
Whether or not heterosexuals scorn homosexuality, their dominance is irrelevant and their duty to any minority is clear. Whether a choice or not a choice, sexual orientation is not a condition that either enhances or reduces our freedom or equality. The fashion or nature of our culture, or any dominant class or majority belief, cannot dilute the tenet of our law.
We will not exhume the graves of the dead that gave us freedom to audit if their sexual orientation excludes their effort. Their blood demands a greater argument. We will not reduce our equality to a matter of sexual orientation.
The “no-choice” strategy represents an attempt by various elements within the GLBT community (and “well-meaning” left-liberal politicians) to afford homosexuality the same privileged discursive status as heterosexuality: as an unquestioned, bio-psychological given.
The dissemination of the “knowledge” that homosexuality is not a choice attempts to empower gays and lesbians by placing it on the same semantic level as heterosexuality. Unfortunately, under such a framework, the attainment of rights and fair treatment become dependent on the fixity of one’s sexual aim: all those who do not demonstrate such a “stable” sexuality are then implicitly excluded from the nexus of rights and privileges.
I see no exclusions, none, from our duty to assure rights and privileges. This is the task of citizenship. Assuring that each of us are equal under the law is the minimum service to our Nation. Can even a strict Constitutionalist disagree?