Gay rights and employee benefits

Gay activist groups targeted Wal-Mart claiming they discriminate against gays because they deny them workers’ benefits and they gave Wal-Mart a “do not buy” rating.  Gays disagree with Wal-Mart’s continued refusal to grant benefits to the partners of cohabitating gay workers, unless the store is in one of the few states that legally recognize domestic partners. 

Is Wal-Mart’s decision discriminatory or is it commendable?  How often does a company the size of Wal-Mart challenge a self-proclaimed special interest group rather than compromise their values as other companies have?  A gay rights group claims, “Wal-Mart is moving in reverse on equal treatment of their employees.”  Is that true, or is Wal-Mart treating their employees fairly, regardless of lifestyle preferences?  All unmarried employees, either heterosexual or homosexual, who are cohabitating are considered single and all single employees are treated the same.    

Wal-Mart refuses to accept the assertion that cohabitating gay partners are the same as a heterosexual husband and wife.  Does this make Wal-Mart narrow-minded or prejudiced?  Perhaps neither.  Perhaps Wal-Mart is taking a stand.  Perhaps Wal-Mart maintains marriage is between a man and a woman; it is not cohabitating partners, either homosexual or heterosexual.  Nor is it ‘married’ homosexual partners any more than ‘married’ polygamous partners. 

Too often the homosexual community and their supporters claim those who openly disagree with gays’ choices are intolerant, bigoted, discriminatory, homophobic, and the like.  This type of attack is best described by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, a poet and friend of William Wordsworth, “I have seen great intolerance shown in support of tolerance.”  Does this describe the homosexual community’s treatment of anyone disagreeing with their lifestyle? 

If I understand it correctly, one of the gay community’s claims is that people are born either homosexual or heterosexual; therefore, they have no choice but to live a gay lifestyle if they are born that way.  The ‘if and then’ of this unpersuasive argument does not follow.  We are not required to succumb to whatever genetic behavioral trait we may possess.  To the contrary, an important distinguishing feature of human beings is our ability to control our behavior rather than simply following our genetic instincts. 

How about infidelity?  How many people would like a genetic pre-disposition to justify their infidelity?  Should society allow any behavior someone chooses, someone claims is genetic?  Are we not expected to exercise any control over our behavior?

Some people believe alcohol and drug addicts are born with the genes for addiction.  If they are addicts by genetics does that make their addictions okay? 

More important, addiction recovery programs teach that the addict has the free choice to drink or use drugs; their genetic propensity is irrelevant.  Further, it is the addict’s responsibility to make a conscious decision whether to give in to that genetic susceptibility.   

Why should homosexuality be any different?  Gays have the same choice addicts have, the same choice polygamists have, the same choice we all have.  Gays have control over their actions, their choices, and their behaviors. They choose whether to give in to their genetic pre-disposition to homosexuality. 

And, if a company succumbs to treating a gay couple the same as a heterosexual married couple, wouldn’t it be discriminatory not to treat unmarried heterosexual couples in the same way?  Maybe we just abandon any and all definitions of marriage, any definitions of right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable. 

The benefits gays are demanding are among the most expensive for an employer and are passed on in the pricing of a company’s products.  Is it reasonable to expect consumers to financially subsidize the gay lifestyle?

Individuals who are homosexual have the right to live as they choose, but do they have the right to demand the rest of us condone, legitimize, and subsidize their choices?  They were not forced to live outside accepted standards, they chose to do so. 

Supporting a gay’s right to live as they choose is in no way an endorsement or acceptance of that lifestyle.  Nor does it suggest gays should have any privileges beyond that of any other single person.  Nor are they a minority group needing special protection. 

They may claim to be born gay, but they choose whether to live a gay life.

Print Page