Penn State University and the fair housing (ordinance) should not include sexual orientation in its discrimination clauses. Why? Because giving rights to a behavioral group, such as the homosexual students on this campus, gives rights to certain individuals that no one else has.

The behavior of an individual, which is a good indication of his/her moral character, should be taken into account in the matter of housing, employment or any other situation.

Picture this: A person walks into a jewelry store and applies for a job. Upon looking into the background of the individual, the employer discovers that the person is a kleptomaniac. He denies the applicant the job.

However, he is later taken to court because under the kleptomaniacs' rights bill -- a person who is born or socialized with the propensity to steal, should not be denied employment anywhere.

Or picture this: A priest is looking for a music teacher for the eighth grade in a Catholic school. An applicant lists prior musical experience and is generally qualified for the job. However, the priest is a little disturbed by the applicant's insistence to teach boys.

Upon further investigation, it is revealed that the applicant is a homosexual. Because of the priest's deep religious convictions, he very easily turns the applicant down for the job. However, the candidate sues him under a gay rights ordinance just passed in the state.

The first case in these two examples is a concocted story; however, the second is not. It is an actual case that occurred in Minneapolis in 1983.

The lesson illustrated by both cases is an obvious one. Allowing groups that are tied together by their behavior, whether mutable or immutable, certain rights because of that behavior, leads to perverse public decisions being made.

These decisions cut across the boundaries of other people's rights, those that are guaranteed by the Constitution. In the second case, it was the priest's religious convictions that were infringed upon (incidentally, once that specific ordinance in Minneapolis was put before voters, it was defeated by a landslide).

In Gary Hart's latest presidential run, it was discovered, and Gary later admitted, that he had committed adultery. His campaign soon fizzled out because of the revelation of this fact.

Although Mr. Hart would attempt to disregard his act as irrelevant to the campaign, most voters did not think so. Mr. Hart's actions were a direct indication of his moral character and voters decided he was not fit to be president.

If there had been an ordinance that stated people who commit adultery should not be discriminated against, Gary Hart would have a good case against the American people. Thankfully, there is not.

Our Constitution does not protect the behavior of certain individuals and for a good reason. To do so would conflict with peoples' ability to determine right from wrong and make a sound judgment based on that.

Now many will say that the Constitution did not protect race or women initially, either. That's true and there was a clear indication that this was wrong by the fact that these two groups suffered socio-economic harm because of it. It was clearly wrong and changed.

The fact that a person is black, female and Catholic should have no bearing on how a person works or lives to the employer or landlord. It is how that person behaves and the result of that behavior that should be judged. An employer would not keep a lazy person and a landlord would not keep a destructive one.

To give another example, Buchanan and Muir in Gay Times and Disease, report that the rate of infectious hepatitis B among gay men is 20 to 50 times higher than that of the heterosexual population. Another article stated that 90 percent of gay men have or had this disease.

I believe a restaurant owner or a landlord has the right to take this information, which is clearly a result of behavior, and make a sound judgement on the right of that person to work or live there.

I think Penn State, as well as the borough, would be making a grave error including this behavior group in its non-discrimination laws. It would open up the door for other special-interest behavioral groups to claim rights and certainly infringe on other's rights to make sound judgements based on behavior.

I'll agree "Homophobia has no place at Penn State," but neither do rights based on behavior.