The civil rights and feminist movements genuinely changed people’s minds about the meaning of equality. These movements are far from complete successes, but most thoughtful Americans tend now to accept their basic principles.

Why then, when approval of racial and sexual equality is the official norm, is it still appropriate to question the acceptance of homosexuality? In a supposedly “enlightened” culture, this prejudice is a blot upon our society’s sense of righteousness and fairness.

Criticism of homosexuality can be based on emotion or reason. Emotional prejudice can often be attributed to people’s uncertainty about their sexual identity or discomfort with others’ differences.

Leasned disagreement with homesexuality is rarer but more disturbing, since it legitimizes and rationalizes what is, in essence, an irrational hatred. Irrational, because the arguments against homosexuality simply don’t make sense.

For instance, homosexuality supposedly leads to promiscuity and the inability to form long-term commitments.

While thee are may examples to disprove this, one also should realize prejudice against homosexuality places enormous obstacles on relationships. Homosexual couples must constantly inhibit their emotions in public for fear of ostracism.

If fact, most states, including Illinois, still prohibit same sex marriages. Supporting this legislation while decrying homosexual and lesbian promiscuity is hyprocracy at its worst.

The most common argument claims homosexuality is “unnatural”, since the purpose of sex is for procreation.

Jacob Bronowski, in his book “The Ascent Of Man,” finds the startling flaw in this logic. He points out that a woman is the only female of any species able to experience an orgasm.

Because a female orgasm has no impact on reproduction the implication is clear and powerful-sexual love in humans has a purpose beyond the propagation of life.

Since sex is meant to be enjoyed for its own sake it is difficult to rationalize any prejudice against a way of enjoying it. Compassionate people see that others should do whatever makes them happy as long as it doesn’t harm others.

However, may people fear homosexuals can cause harm by reversing an otherwise “normal” sexual orientation in other people.

This is totally unreasonable, snce heterosexuals don’t “choose” to like the opposite sex because it is socially convenient.

Similarly, testimony from homosexuals indicates the choise of same-sex relations is not an act of rebellion but an acknowledgement of a pre-existing attraction.

Still, some argue homosexuality should not be embraced because it is a flaw upon the normal human condition.

Homosexuality, though, cannot be equated with birth defects since homosexuality is not intrinsically harmful to a person’s normal health. Rather, it it like being born with violet eyes – different, but not inferior.

The silliest argument is that there would be no more people if everyone were gay. Surely, acceptance of homosexuality will never entice most men and women from doing what comes naturaly.

Besides, imagine how many more mouths to feed there would be if everyone were straight.