Globally, and especially in the United States, human rights is a reoccurring, trending topic subjected to political debate. Throughout the span of United States history, several race, religious, and cultural movements have been successful in gaining equal rights and acceptance on a legal basis. Although these movements have led to laws protecting these affected individuals, other human rights movements have been significantly less successful in their endeavors. By evaluating the lack of protection of LGBT individuals on a legal basis, we can discern how this leads to discrimination of those individuals by the general public; this is should be addressed briskly because anti-gay discrimination, riot, and hate crime rates are rising at a steady pace.

 Historically, the topic of LGBT discrimination and acceptance is fairly recent. In the 1920’s, the first known pro-gay organization and gay publication was founded by Henry Gerber, a homosexual rights activist (Henry Gerber). This society, however, “disband[ed] due to political pressure” (Milestones in the American Gay Rights Movement). Subsequently following WWII, numerous efforts and protests were carried out to increase the support of an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity (Morris). In 1948, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male is published by Alfred Kinsey, a biologist and sex researcher, debunking the misconception of homosexuality as a mental illness. Despite the persistent demand for equality from other LGBT organizations, their proposals were not willingly accepted by the law-making officials of the United States government. Instead, anti-discrimination laws were passed to protect an individuals’ race, ethnicity, and religious affiliations – excluding sexual orientation and gender identity. The exclusion of LGBT persons in such bills violates the Constitution and purloins the natural born rights of U.S. citizens documented within it. Although same-sex marriages have been legalized nationwide, the lack of other LGBT protection permits employers and civilians to discriminate and perform hate crimes with minor repercussions. The absence of laws, in the United States, that provide equal rights and protection for LGBT citizens contributes to the rise of discrimination and hate crimes against such individuals.

Many members of the general public often turn to religion as a means to justify why LGBT persons are undeserving of basic human rights such as marriage equality, workplace equality, and freedom of expression. It is often argued that same sex relationships and fornication “violates biblical mandates” (The Religious Right’s War on LGBT Americans). Several go beyond this by reciting various biblical scriptures that prohibit, shun, and punish homosexual and queer behaviors such as: 

5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. 8 In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings (New International Version, Jud. 1.5-8). … [and] … 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done (New International Version, Rom. 1.26-28).

For persons against LGBT rights, these scriptures serve as evidence of the wrongfulness of homosexuality. The verses claim that individuals whom do not comply with God’s standard of ideal behaviors and relationships will be deprived of eternal knowledge and condemned to eternal hell. Believers of this biblical text may claim that LGBT citizens should not be granted rights equal to that of heterosexual citizens because they contravene the laws of the religion on which this nation was founded. This notion leads to many members of Christian based faiths to discriminate against such individuals. LGBT discrimination through religious means is successful because there are laws protecting freedom of religion, but no governmental laws protecting freedom of expression. By refusing to pass laws guarding the freedom of expression, the Unites States government is denying “9 million [citizens and] members of the LGBT community” fundamental human rights (Greve).

Religion used as means of justifying the treatment towards homosexual and transgender persons is a reasonable argument because, of the religions practiced in the U.S., the many of their texts correlate homosexuality with sinfulness.. It is also a reasonable  opposing argument because, according to the Pew Research Center, over half of the United States population identifies as Christian (Religious Landscape Study). Although the U.S. is a nation that actively exercises freedom of religion, on this topic, both parties would be able to assent that homosexuality does violate the values of many religious groups. However, 22.8% of the population identify as unaffiliated to any religion (Religious Landscape Study). This conveys that of the U.S. population of 318.9 million citizens, 72,709,200 individuals do not affiliate with any religion. Because Christian based faith is not accepted by every individual, one cannot apply its principles and commandments to every individual. In a country of religious freedom, the testaments of a single religion does not mandate the lifestyle of every citizen. Therefore, LGBT citizens should be granted equal rights on the ground that they, just as their religious counterparts, are exercising their natural born rights: freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

On the other hand, some adversaries would argue that LGBT individuals do not need or deserve protection laws because homosexuality is a choice. The debate on whether or not homosexuality and sexual orientation is a choice has been well discussed for many decades (Milestones in the American Gay Rights Movement). It is often argued through analogies – comparing sexual orientation to common scenarios in which an individual has control over an outcome of a situation. These analogies imply that members of the LGBT community are fully capable of controlling their sexual and emotional attractions to various sexes. Through this frame of mind, it is implied that LGBT discrimination would be acceptable because the lifestyle is a choice (Voytinsky). It is also implied that equal rights laws should not be presented to LGBT individuals because they could easily cease homosexual behavior and be protected under law, rather than continuing the lifestyle not protected under law. 

It is understood that the popular belief that homosexuality is choice does hold some truth. Despite opposing viewpoints, both parties would be able to concede that engaging in homosexual acts is to an individual’s discretion. However, this notion that homosexuality, as a whole, is a choice reduces humans to only performers of intercourse, disregarding the emotional aspect of human relationships (Yes, Homosexuality Absolutely is a Choice).  It oversimplifies the complexity of interaction between human beings “down to a sex act” (Yes, Homosexuality Absolutely is a Choice). As a species, humans are prone to “express their sexual orientation through behaviors [such] as holding hands, kissing and intimacy and affection” (Mountjoy). This conveys that, despite the type of affection, homosexual and heterosexual individuals have “no dissimilar psychopathology”: express attraction with behavior normal to human sexuality (Mountjoy). Several psychologists, including Alfred Kinsey and Evelyn Hooker, have been successful in proving that homosexuality and the engagement of homosexual acts is not a choice, mental illness, nor a disease. As technology has advanced, several studies have been conducted to assess the premise that homosexuality is a choice: something unable to be obtained through birth or hard wired into the brain. Although there is no strand of DNA marked by a “gay gene,” researchers have been able to hypothesize several rationales for an individual being LGBT. One hypothesis suggests that “as an embryo develops, sex-related genes are turned on and off in response to fluctuating levels of hormones in the womb, produced by both mother and child” (Norton). A simpler explanations deduces that sexuality, as well as other characteristics, is determined as the embryo’s brain grows in complexity. With this in mind, LGBT individuals should not be discriminated against and deprived of protection rights due to an element out of individual control: the chemical composition of the brain.    

There are some citizens who are not opposed to equal rights for LGBT individuals, but disagree that the lack of such rights promote discrimination by the general public. It is often argued that if a person is raised to believe every person is equal despite race, religion, and sexual orientation, then the morals of that person would not be compromised by governmental influences. In a 2015 social experiment conducted in Madrid, Spain, randomly selected citizens were unknowingly tested on their reactions to homophobia (Riveras). The experiment consisted of two tourists, both male, explaining their situation and seeking help from local citizens for directions to their hotel. The men explained that prior to arriving in Spain, they contacted the hotel’s manager asking for directions, but the manager’s response was written in Spanish. The citizens of Madrid graciously translated the letter, but were soon distraught by the context. While some of the tested individuals began crying over the vulgar-ness of the email, the majority were struggling to utter the entirety of the text with various slurs and threats. Through the reactions of the randomly selected subjects, Riveras concluded that many individuals of the general public of modern society are  accepting of LGBT lifestyle and are willing to interfere when homophobia is taken into action.

This claim presents a sensible counterargument because it conveys that people are able to decide for themselves what is deemed ethical or unethical. Each party with opposing arguments would be able to concede that the morale of an individual is figuratively sturdy: uneasily changed by outside conflicts. However, because there is a lack of laws to protect LGBT persons, discriminating individuals are able to treat them unjustly in the eyes of the law. With little to no penalty, employers are allowed to fire, refuse to hire, and refuse their services to an individual based on sexual orientation, businesses are allowed to prohibit LGBT persons, and children will learn by observation how to treat a person of a differing sexual orientation. Because there are little to no repercussions for LGBT discrimination, many view no harm in doing so, increasing discrimination rates significantly. In fact, a recent case study, a general interest new site deducted that “students who got to school with enumerated LGBTQ policies experience significantly lower levels of bullying severity” (Vox). This study is one of many that exhibit the actual correlation between laws and discrimination. While discrimination still exists in states with enumerated LGBT laws, the rate is much lower than state without protective laws because those who discriminate are met with consequences. Similarly, an experiment conducted for New York Times consisted of about 15,000 high school students between the ages of 14 and 17, concluded that of the students whom identified as homosexual, they are 3 times more likely to be violently and verbally abused (Hoffman).

Through recent years, some states have passed laws to specifically exclude LGBT persons. In 2016, North Carolina “passed a law blocking local governments from passing anti-discrimination rules to grant protections to gay and transgender people” (Domonoske). Many believe the passing of this bill was to deliberately nullify the city of Charlotte’s ordinance which was passed the month prior. Charlotte’s ordinance, which is popularly known as the bathroom bill, permitted transgender individuals to use the restrooms marked by their gender identities. After the nullification of the Charlotte ordinance, many transgender individuals reported feeling unsafe in situations that often “lead to violence or harassment,” while non-transgender persons voiced that the reality that sexual predators are the issue, not transgender individuals. The author of the article affirms that the lack of laws and a blockage on the creation of laws protecting an individual’s sexual orientation and gender identity increases the likelihood of employers discriminating based on these factors. In a journal, some claim that governmental organizations “have [insufficiently] incorporated the issue of hate crime in their policies to fight discrimination against LGBT persons.” This article shows that by not implicating laws to protect LGBT citizens, discrimination increases due to the lack of repercussions.

In modern society, the LGBT community has been gaining more recognition in its “legal pursuit of happiness which is guaranteed [to] them by the Declaration of Independence” (Henry Gerber). Despite an increasing amount of civil protests and crises that required a legal response, U.S. government officials remain hesitant to grant rights to the LGBT community. Although some equality issues have been addressed, such as the allowance of same-sex marriage, there is still an overwhelming amount of under-publicized dilemmas. Some citizens, however, would disagree that homosexual individuals are entitled to equal and protection rights. Among several opposing arguments, the majority of adversaries claim that LGBT persons are in violation of the Bible, homosexuality is a choice, and lack of legal protection does not affect the moral decisions of non-LGBT individuals. While some truth is held within these accusations, the scope of the entire issue is not being taken into account; only some members  of the LGBT community are being considered, while a broad overview of the entire United States population is over complexed. This conveys that not only is the LGBT community as a whole under-regarded, but smaller groups within the LGBT community are exposed to far less recognition than others. The true impact of laws on the behavior of the general public toward the LGBT community is amplified when examining how crude treatment toward the community has minor repercussions. The creation and enforcement of laws that protect the natural born rights of homosexual citizens would not completely diminish discrimination against them, but it would cause discriminatory rates to drop significantly. 
