Don't ask, Don't Tell repealed, and thoughts on why disapproval of homosexuality is not bigotry

I found this on a message board at one point and copied it to keep for future reading, because it makes good sense. People use the term "bigot" like a club to attack anyone who disagrees with them, but that usage isn't always correct. Read on...

Having a moral objection to a particular kind of action doesn't make someone a bigot. The term "bigot" is constantly used as a weapon with which to attack anyone and everyone who objects to the "gay rights" movement on moral grounds. But this terminology is misplaced and misleading.
Let's say that my next-door neighbor and his wife attend a monthly "swinging"/"wife-swapping" party. Let's also presuppose that both my neighbor and his wife truly want to be involved in these parties, and both of them feel strongly that this kind of action is enjoyable and emotionally fulfilling, and even good for their marriage.

Now let's say that I raise objections to my neighbor's action on moral grounds, because I am convinced (both for theological and philosophical reasons, not out of an unreasoning "homophobia") that marriage vows can only be truly honored, and love can only grow and flourish, if the relationship is such that neither the husband or wife seeks intimacy outside the marriage.

Certainly I am taking a stance against my neighbor's action, as well as the actions of his wife and everyone else involved in the swinging/wife-swapping parties they attend. But this does not in any way imply that I hate my neighbor, or that I am trying to deny his full human dignity. I am objecting to the activity that he and his wife engage in at the swinging parties, not because of hate or fear but because of a conviction that what they are doing is harmful to their marriage and to each of them personally.

The same is true if I say that I object to activity in which two men or two women touch each other in such a way as to arouse and stimulate each other. Making this claim does not make me a bigot, nor does it in any way mean that I hate those who engage in such activity, or that I wish anyone harm, either physically or in any other way.

Racism and objection to the "gay rights" movement are constantly compared as though they were fundamentally the same ("homophobia" is lumped together with racism and anti-Semitism); even the phrase "gay rights" implies this, because it invites comparison to the Civil Rights movement of the 60s.

But in truth this is a false comparison, a comparison made "obvious" by repetition rather than by true similarity. Racism means that I fail to recognize the full human dignity of another person because of his or her ethnicity or race; I view this person as somehow less than human, and perhaps even as something worthless that can be abused or destroyed with impunity. It was racism that motivated the Nazi genocide of the Jewish people during the 30s and 40s, and racism that motivates white supremacist groups such as the KKK.

But voicing a moral objection to some kind of action, provided that is done in a non-violent way and respectful way, is neither racism nor bigotry. One is not a bigot for objecting to "gay" or "lesbian" activity any more than one is a bigot for objecting to swinging/wife-swapping, or for objecting to polygamy (and here I mean polygamy in which everyone is of legal age and no woman has been forced to marry against her will). I object to all these kinds of action, not because I bear animosity towards those who are involved in these actions but because I believe that these kinds of actions are contrary to the good of the persons involved.

I'm anything but a perfect person; I've done many things in my life that are neither good nor loving. But making a statement about the moral wrong of some kind of action doesn't presuppose that the person making the statement is morally perfect; understanding why something is right isn't the same as actually doing the right thing (although ultimately the two must go together if the person's actions are to be consistent with his or her thoughts and words).

It's important to notice that everything I've said here is true regardless of whether a person's attraction to others of the same sex is (a) genetically/biologically determined, (b) the result of psychological factors stemming from one's life history, or (c) some combination thereof. The point is that what I'm denying is not the person's human dignity, but the moral goodness of his or her actions. Having a genetic predisposition for a certain kind of action does not necessarily mean that said action is morally legitimate. One could make the argument that all humans have a genetic inclination towards having sex with multiple others rather than just one other (insofar as this allows for a greater probability of successfully passing on one's genes), but that doesn't mean that being faithful to one's husband or wife is contrary to nature or that swinging/wife-swapping is morally right.

The point of my post is simply to indicate that it's unjust to throw around the term "bigot" in reference to any and everyone who objects to the "gay rights" movement and the claims that it makes about sexual morality and about sexual difference. Raising moral objections is not hatred, and using the term "bigot" prejudices the issue by painting all who raise objections as angry, dangerous people who want to inflict harm, either physically or psychologically. The best way to silence those who disagree with you is by depicting them as ignorant, dangerous wackos (which is easy to do when you can draw attention to fringe groups like the people who demonstrate at military funerals).