Samar V J
Philosophy Department, Loyola University, Chicago, IL 60611.
J Homosex. 1994;27(3-4):147-78. doi: 10.1300/J082v27n03_09.
This essay explores, in two parts, the problems of justifying civil rights legislation for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Part I shows that discrimination against gays and lesbians at least in respect to employment, housing, and public accommodations is an evil unsupported by ethical traditions in utilitarianism, rights theory, and communitarianism. It also shows that two theories, Kantian theory and natural law theory, which do support such discrimination on the claim that homoerotic behavior is universally or objectively immoral only do so because of a failure to make precise the concept of "natural" which underlies those theories. Part II argues that anti-discrimination legislation is both an appropriate and effective means to promote the idea that discrimination against lesbians and gays in respect to most employment, housing, and public accommodations is sufficiently injurious to both individuals and society that it should not be tolerated. The section also explains how such legislation might succeed practically in eliminating discrimination in these areas.
本文分两部分探讨为男同性恋者、女同性恋者和双性恋者的民权立法提供正当理由的问题。第一部分表明,至少在就业、住房和公共住宿方面对男同性恋者和女同性恋者的歧视是一种恶行,功利主义、权利理论和社群主义的伦理传统都无法为之提供支持。它还表明,康德理论和自然法理论这两种理论确实支持这种歧视,声称同性恋行为普遍或客观上不道德,但这样做只是因为未能精确界定这些理论所依据的“自然”概念。第二部分认为,反歧视立法是促进以下观念的适当且有效手段:在大多数就业、住房和公共住宿方面对女同性恋者和男同性恋者的歧视对个人和社会都造成了足够大的伤害,不应被容忍。该部分还解释了此类立法在实际中如何成功消除这些领域的歧视。