GaypeoplearebecominganoticeablesocialpresenceinpartsofthePeople’sRepublicofChina.Thisphenomenonhasyieldedacertainamountofsocialanxiety.Parentsareanxiousthattheironechildwillnotproducegrandchildren；prejudicedpeoplearedisgustedthattwomenortwowomenwouldbecomeintimatewithoneanother；citizensofallsortsfindhomosexualitymysteriousandthereforealittlefrightening.Therearereportsofprivateaswellaspublic“discrimination”againstthesehomosexuals.Assumingthistobetrue，shouldanti-gaydiscriminationbeamatterforsocialorlegalconcern？Ifso，doesexperienceinotherpartsoftheworldsuggestmeasuresthatmightbetakenbythestate？
1.Whatis“discrimination”asappliedtolesbiansandgaymen？
Animportantpreliminaryquestionis：Whatcountsasdiscriminationagainstlesbiansandgaymen？“Discrimination”istreatingsimilarthingsdifferently-ortreatingdifferentthingsthesame.Forexample，homosexualintercoursecannotproducechildren；therefore，thestate’spopulation-controlprogramisproperlylimitedtoheterosexualmarriedorcohabitingcouples.Leavingoutgaymalecouplesisnot“discrimination”againstthem.Otherexclusionsdoconstitutediscrimination，asdopersecutions（thetargetingofaclassofpersonsforspecialpenalties），andsometimesevenafailuretoprotect.Considersomeexamples.
（a）TargetedAnti-GayPersecutionsandViolence.Thesearestatepoliciesvilifyinghomosexualsasasocialthreatandseekingtoidentify，detain，andpurgethesepeoplefromsociety.Manycivilizedcountriestodaywonderwhetherthisisworthseriousdiscussion，butgaypeoplehavebeensubjecttosuchpersecutionsthroughouthumanhistory，especiallyintheWest.Between1945and1970，mostgovernmentsinNorthAmericaandEuropeactivelypersecutedlesbiansandgaymen-arrestingthemforconsensualhomosexualactivities，confiningthemtomentalinstitutionsandprisons，subjectingthesepeopletotortureandexperimentalmedical“treatments”，andseizingtheirprivatecorrespondenceandtheirliterature（Eskridge，1999）.Thisisnotonlyanexampleofdiscrimination，butalsoofthewayinwhichdiscriminationcanbepartofalargerprogramofsocialcontrol.
IntheUnitedStates，someprovincialjurisdictionshavemadeitacrimeforconsentingadultsofthesamesextohavesexualrelationsinthehome，evenwhenthesamerelationswouldbelegalifengagedinbypersonsofdifferentsexes（Eskridge，1999，app.A1）.Thisepitomizesanti-gaydiscrimination：thesamephysicalactivities（typically，oralsex）arecriminaliftwowomendoitbutperfectlylegalifthewomandoesitwithaman.Althoughthewoman-womancoupleisdifferentthanthewoman-mancouple，thedifferenceisnotmateriallyrelatedtothepurposeofthecriminallaw，toprotectpersonsagainstunconsentedsexualassault.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtoriginallysuggestedthatstatescouldadoptsuchdiscriminatorylaws，butin2003theCourtruledthattheselawsviolatedtheU.S.Constitution（Lawrencev.Texas，2003）.
（b）TargetedExclusionsofGayPeople.Theforegoingexamplesarediscriminatorypoliciesthatsingleoutlesbiansandgaymenforspecialpenalties.Otherdiscriminatorypoliciessingleoutlesbiansandgaymenforspecialexclusionorsegregation.（TheclassicexampleofdiscriminatoryexclusionistheapartheidpolicyfollowedinSouthAfricaandseveralAmericanprovincesduringthetwentiethcentury.）IntheUnitedStatesandpartsofEurope，governmentsinthe1950shadpoliciesthattheoreticallyexcludedhomosexualsfromserviceinthearmedforces，publicemployment，professionallicenses，immigrationandcitizenship，voting，andsecurityclearances（Johnson，2004）.Weretheseexclusionarypolicies“discriminations”asweusethattermtoday？Consideracommonexample.
Isit“discrimination”foraschooltorefusetohirelesbiansorgaymentobeteachers？Theanswertothisquestiondependsonwhetherthereisamaterialdifferencebetweenhomosexualsandheterosexualsforpurposesofthistask-teachingschoolchildren.Noonethinksthatlesbiansorgaymenaredifferentfromstraightpeopleintheirintelligence，abilitytoexpressthemselves，attentiontodetail，andotherabilitiesthatarerelevanttothisoccupation.NorthAmericanslongbelieved（andsomestilldo）thathomosexualsaremorelikelythanheterosexualstosexuallyassaultchildrenandyoungpeople；certainlythatwouldbeamaterialdifferencethatwouldnegatetheinferencethatexcludinggaypeoplewouldconstitutediscrimination.Butthatasserteddifferencedoesnotexistinfact.Empiricaldataindicatethatlesbiansandopenlygaymenalmostneverassaultchildren，andthattheproblemofchildmolestationisassociatedwithstraightmalesand“closeted”gaymen（e.g.，Jennyetal.，1994）.
（c）PoliciesEffectivelyorDisproportionatelyExcludingGayPeople.Someexclusionsoperateindirectly，andmostofthemarenotconsidereddiscriminatory.Forexample，astateprogramprovidingparentswithsubsidiesandspecialprivilegeswouldapplytofewgaymeninWesternsocieties.Isthisadiscriminationagainstgaymen？Probablynot，becausethereisnocompleteexclusionofgaypeople，noristheprogrammotivatedbyanti-gayprejudice.Thequalification（raisingchildren）isonethatthestatecanreasonablyemphasize，andhomosexualsdohavetheoptionofraisingchildrenintheWest.（Lesbiansfrequentlyraisetheirownbiologicalchildren；gaymendosomuchlessoften.）