The topics of the extent a homosexuals civil rights should be stated has become a topic in congress more so than ever. The civil rights preventing a person from being fired from a job for being gay and the right of an apartment owner to deny a person from renting from them for being a homosexual has been heated arguments for years now. There are not many public "facts" on these topics but the truth is, that to make a decision on these topics you have to look inside yourself and search your own beliefs and morals.
At the employment nondiscrimination act for senates on September 9, 1996, representatives from all the states got together to discuss these topics and then vote on whether to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Some people might agree with a known republican from the state of Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee, that the only factor that should be considered in the work place is the ability of an employee or potential employee to do the job at hand. Since Sexual orientation, like race or ethnicity, has nothing to do with the job ability, it seems that it has no place as a basis for discrimination.
I am sure that everyone has heard the arguments about whether or not people who are homosexuals are born that way or if it is a behavior in which they have developed or were taught. I cannot say for sure there is no way that there could be individuals who are genetically predisposed. But in 1998, thousands of former homosexuals gathered in Seattle to proclaim that hope for change is possible. It is clear to me that while there could be some genetic bases for the activity in some way or another, but it is an activity of choice in other aspects and that it is a choice which can be made or not made.
I agree with the senator from Indiana, Mr. Coats, that unlike race or ethnicity, a law that is prohibiting the discrimination against sexual orientation would be protecting an individual's behavior, rather than an individual's status, as traditional civil rights laws have done. I think that we as a nation are not talking about extending the rights of every citizen in the US but rather rights for people based on their lifestyle choice.
If we were to give homosexuals the civil rights law that they are asking for a person would not be allowed to rent an apartment to whomever they want. If they were strong moral people who did not want their children to be around that lifestyle, they would not have a choice in the matter. On job applications there is no box to check stating whether a person is straight, homosexual, or bisexual, so how would the employers even know unless the person told them. The workplace is the time nor location to be discussing whom a person sleeps with anyway.
I do not believe that anyone should be fired, evicted, or even physically and mentally harmed whether straight or gay, but I also do not think that people should go around preaching their sexual preferences. You do not see people introducing themselves as, "Hi, my name is Amy and I am straight" so why do homosexuals feel the need to broadcast their preferences? I find myself to be a more conservative person most of the time. When it comes to politics and my morals influencing my decisions they play a huge role in my political views.
Now, I do not think that just because a person disagrees with the civil laws requested in 1996 by homosexuals, that they are bigoted or homophobic. I personally do not have a problem with homosexuals. I have many friends whom are "out of the closet" and I would be upset if any harm came to a single one of them. But I still disagree with their lifestyle and would not want my children to be exposed to their lifestyle without my consent as they would be if the law passed and camp counselors, teachers, or neighbors were not selected as they are now.