Appendix to Edith's Last Post

In college I wrote a paper specifically about the biological vs. non-bioligical debate surrounding homosexuality right now. One of the fascinating things I learned in my research is that a big reason that the argument favoring homosexuality as biologically determined has gained ground so quickly lately, is that various legal scholars and lawyers are trying to model their arguments in favor of gay rights on earlier civil rights movements. One of the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause in the Thirteenth Amendment is that the trait that triggers discrimination against a group of people be "immutable." This term has been falsely interpreted to mean biological, a clear blunder if you look at the classic group which the clause was originally written for: people of color. What do you know, race is not actually a biological trait. In my essay I examine all the reasons biological determinism is a weak argument for winning gay rights on the legal level, as well as how the gay civil rights movement can learn from the successes and failures of the feminist and anti-racist movements. In the process of writing it, I came to understand the issues Edith talks about in her most recent post much more clearly and if you're interested in reading my essay for yourself you can find it at: docs.google.com/View?docid=dhtcv2dw_0ckzvrn