LGBT equality same as black equality

[setter]

There is a new community paper in our town that is being launched with the specific agenda to “advance the public agenda on behalf of the LGBT community”. I want to respond with a natutal law, non-religious argument why the LGBT and black equality issue are not comparable.

Any suggestions for how I articulate the argument that equality for the “Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transexual community” is not the same as “the equality that was fought for the black community” as they state.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Well, for starters, being black is a simple variation in skin pigmintation. A person has no control over being black.

Similarly, a person (supposedly) has no control over being homosexual / bisexual. However, the state of being is not what is sinful. A person being gay is about as important as a person being black, or white, or having brown hear, or having green eyes. It is simply a state of being with no moral implications.

What the homosexual community is arguing over is the “Right to marry.” They claim that there is no difference between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage.

All you have to do is ask one question.

“Can two men naturally produce a child through homosexual acts?”

Ignoring the immorality of homosexual acts, this is really your best bet at a natural law argument. They cannot, and therefore cannot be equal to a heterosexual marriage, which is capable of producing life, and extending society (which, incidentally, is why heterosexual couples receive tax and death benefits, not just because they are married and in love, as the gay agenda people would proclaim)

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Regardless of propaganda to the contrary, an individuals sexual orientation is selective. No one is born having sexual desires for their own sex. As one grows up, ones sexual orientation is conditioned by many external as well as internal factors. These can be controlled by the individual. The idea that one is “born that way” is just a cop out to avoid personal responsibility for ones aberrant sexual behavior.
An individual has no control over which race they are born into.

 

[Robertanthony]

Well, for starters, being black is a simple variation in skin pigmintation. A person has no control over being black.

Similarly, a person (supposedly) has no control over being homosexual / bisexual. However, the state of being is not what is sinful. A person being gay is about as important as a person being black, or white, or having brown hear, or having green eyes. It is simply a state of being with no moral implications.

What the homosexual community is arguing over is the “Right to marry.” They claim that there is no difference between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage.

All you have to do is ask one question.

"Can two men naturally produce a child through homosexual acts?"

No they need a “selfless” lesbian friend. Unfortunately the gay propaganda is too swift and sweeping (and irrational) to be countered by mere words. If you’re not 100% in favour of all their demands, you get to be qualified “intolerant”, and nowadays intolerance seems to be the quintessential sin, the sin against the Spirit to use a metaphor. Frankly, there is no reversing this tide until God steps in. And besides, who says two cruising homosexual men can’t be awesome dads?Morally, this is where we’re at. I say it’s a futile attempt to try and stop this tide, all that one can ever achieve is to slow it down, at best.

 

[Joe_5859]

It depends what you mean by equality. The problem is they are asking for the same “equality” but are defining what it means somewhat differently.

If by equality, you mean that all people need to be treated with equal dignity and not discriminated against on the basis of their differences, then, yes, any group’s fight for equality is the same.

But if by equality you mean that others need to let you do whatever it is you want to do indiscriminately, then we need to put the breaks on it and evaluate further what it is the group wants to do. The fact is, all people are being treated equally. Every person has a right to marry someone of the opposite gender.

If you’re entering into a debate on it, I would not go down the road of saying that it is a choice. Certainly, the behavior to act on the inclination is a choice (unless someone believes there is no such thing as free will), but bringing that up usually just serves to get your comments dismissed.

 

[exnihilo]

I say it’s a futile attempt to try and stop this tide, all that one can ever achieve is to slow it down, at best.

I tend to share your pessimism based on what I observe but I think we should have hope as with God all things are possible. Personally I think the homosexual advocates make a point worthy of address when they note how marriage has been destroyed by ‘straight people’. We got to the point we are at when sex became just for pleasure, not for producing children, and when divorce became no big deal. I have sympathy for the homosexuals because they are really just living out in fullness the morality most ‘straight people’ preach and practice.

 

[Joe_5859]

If you’re looking for natural law talking points, Dr. Ken Howell does a pretty good job of spelling it all out in an email to his students (an email that got him fired – though he was later re-instated):

news-gazette.com/news/religion/2010-07-09/e-mail-prompted-complaint-over-ui-religion-class-instructor.html

 

[105lynne]

Well, for starters, being black is a simple variation in skin pigmintation. A person has no control over being black.

Similarly, a person (supposedly) has no control over being homosexual / bisexual. However, the state of being is not what is sinful. A person being gay is about as important as a person being black, or white, or having brown hear, or having green eyes. It is simply a state of being with no moral implications.

What the homosexual community is arguing over is the “Right to marry.” They claim that there is no difference between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage.

All you have to do is ask one question.

“Can two men naturally produce a child through homosexual acts?”

Ignoring the immorality of homosexual acts, this is really your best bet at a natural law argument. They cannot, and therefore cannot be equal to a heterosexual marriage, which is capable of producing life, and extending society (which, incidentally, is why heterosexual couples receive tax and death benefits, not just because they are married and in love, as the gay agenda people would proclaim)

I’ve heard this argument before, only to be responded with “what about a heterosexual couple who can’t have children. Do they not have a right to marry either if they cannot produce children? Should THEY remain celibate simply because one or both of them are infertile.”
I don’t know how to respond to that…Thoughts?

 

[Joe_5859]

Regardless of propaganda to the contrary, an individuals sexual orientation is selective. No one is born having sexual desires for their own sex. As one grows up, ones sexual orientation is conditioned by many external as well as internal factors. These can be controlled by the individual. The idea that one is “born that way” is just a cop out to avoid personal responsibility for ones aberrant sexual behavior.
An individual has no control over which race they are born into.

You’re not going to go very far in a debate if this is the point you lead with.

I think we are better off not even engaging in the “born that way” debate. It makes no difference to the morality of the acts. And there are a great many people with this inclination who very much disagree that they would choose something that brought so much pain, suffering, and ostracization into their lives. Why kick the hornets’ nest if you don’t have to?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I say it’s a futile attempt to try and stop this tide, all that one can ever achieve is to slow it down, at best.

Again, I raise the concept of buying an island. Who’s in?

I also share your pessimism. Until society actually sees the negative consequences, nothing will be done. And currently, people are too blinded by hubris and lust TO see the consequences.

 

[Joe_5859]

Another good resource is Defending a Higher Law. It is a (free) book-length look at this issue, and it includes responses to most of the common arguments you’ll hear in the public debate.

 

[Joe_5859]

Again, I raise the concept of buying an island. Who’s in?

I also share your pessimism. Until society actually sees the negative consequences, nothing will be done. And currently, people are too blinded by hubris and lust TO see the consequences.

No man is an island. We need to engage, not separate (as difficult as that is).

With God, all things are possible. Let us pray for an increase in the virtue of hope. Whatever trials we go through on this earth, we know that God has won the final victory.

 

[Publisher]

The problem you will face is that many people who are in favor of marriage equality and inclusion of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters do not subscribe to your starting point. We do not believe sexual orientation is chosen, it is an inborn inate part of who the person is and except for those rare instances it cannot be changed, just as indelible as race.

Also, many of us…if not most who support civil rights for GLBT people, do not find their sexual orientation “un-natural” of deviant. It is simply a variation of human sexualality…a sexuality that is extremely complex.

While sexuality and race are two different issues, the STRUGGLE for equality in our society is similar. Trying to reduce this struggle, which in many cases and recognized by most people as the similar struggle for equality our African American brothers and sisters have engaged in and still struggle with in some parts of the country IS SIMILAR not only in seeking to find legal acceptance but social and religious acceptance.

You’re going to have a difficult struggle to “refute” the issue when the people you are seeking to refute simply does not accept your starting premise that it’s all about the kind of sexual encounters individuals want to engage in.

The struggle of the LGBT community and the African American community IS similar in many ways…the discrimination these two communities have and do face IS similar…if not in your mind or by defintion of your churches beliefs…but similar in the American publics mind…whether that’s right or wrong in your estimation…you’re not going to change public consenses that the struggle for equality IS similar.

 

[Myqyl]

It seems more relevant to equate homosexuality with being left handed. Homosexuality is not a ethnicity or race, so I think that distorts the issue. Being a person of color has never (to my knowledge) been declared as an abomination against the Will of God.

400 years ago, being left handed was reason enough to get you burned as a witch since it was obviously a distortion of the natural law and God’s Will. People that didn’t want to be burned simply need to resist the evil temptation to use their left hand predominantly. 40 years ago when I was in Catholic school I remember the boy next to me being beaten with a ruler for writing left handed. In fact this year I had to remove my left handed daughter from Catholic school when the school decided that all assignments for every class had to be written in cursive, which most left handed individuals struggle with for various reasons. I wanted to tell my daughter that being left handed was a choice (and against the Will of God) but my liberal leaning left handed wife stopped me. (Dang Lefties)

I have heard it argued that the Church can never change any stance it takes, which I have to assume means my daughter (and wife) are hell bound witches that will someday be burned alive, and that all homosexuals are and always will be abominations.

So while gays today suffer many of the indignities that people of color suffered in the 1950’s, (denied rights others have) at least they are not in danger of being burned at the stake (unless they are also left handed).

 

[ivebeenshown]

I’ve heard this argument before, only to be responded with “what about a heterosexual couple who can’t have children. Do they not have a right to marry either if they cannot produce children? Should THEY remain celibate simply because one or both of them are infertile.”
I don’t know how to respond to that…Thoughts?

Sterility or infertility invalidates marital intimacy no more than does the infertile portion of a woman’s natural cycle. Vaginal intercourse is ordered toward procreation in the best of circumstances (health, fertility, so on.) Oral, anal, and manual intercourse cannot produce children even in the best of circumstances.

 

[fix]

I have heard it argued that the Church can never change any stance it takes, which I have to assume means my daughter (and wife) are hell bound witches that will someday be burned alive, and that all homosexuals are and always will be abominations.

What strange moral equivalency. The Church never taught left handedness was a sin. Individual persons may have been misguided but how in any way is that like homosexual acts?

 

[Brendan]

The problem you will face is that many people who are in favor of marriage equality and inclusion of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters do not subscribe to your starting point. We do not believe sexual orientation is chosen, it is an inborn inate part of who the person is and except for those rare instances it cannot be changed, just as indelible as race. .

But any actions in conformity to their sexual orientation ARE, by definition, choices.

One man may choose to have sex with another man, but one does not choose one’s genetic makeup.

The LGBT community is about legalizing the choices they elect to make, which is markedly different than a black person’s genetic makeup.

 

[Corki]

I’ve heard this argument before, only to be responded with “what about a heterosexual couple who can’t have children. Do they not have a right to marry either if they cannot produce children? Should THEY remain celibate simply because one or both of them are infertile.”
I don’t know how to respond to that…Thoughts?

Civil rights is about classes of people, not individuals. The right to marry is because of being a member of the class of men or the class of women. All members of the class of men have the right to marry a member of the class of women and vice versa. As classes, that combination is **the only one **that can result in procreation and a family. If an individual has a condition that makes procreation impossible, it doesn’t change his/her rights as a member of the class.

You can make the analogy to the race argument (which is a flawed comparison, by nonetheless). As a black person (member of a minority class) an individual is given certain legal protections against discrimination in employment, housing, education, etc. What about a black person who is disabled and cannot work? Do they lose thier legal protections for housing or education? No. Those protections are as a result of membership in the class regardless of individual abilities.

 

[Publisher]

But any actions in conformity to their sexual orientation ARE, by definition, choices.

One man may choose to have sex with another man, but one does not choose one’s genetic makeup.

The LGBT community is about legalizing the choices they elect to make, which is markedly different than a black person’s genetic makeup.

However you wish to couch the arguement…you’ll have to convince the person you are speaking with to your postion…probably won’t be too convincing unless they hold your beliefs concerning sexuality and orientation to begin with.

 

[fix]

However you wish to couch the arguement…you’ll have to convince the person you are speaking with to your postion…probably won’t be too convincing unless they hold your beliefs concerning sexuality and orientation to begin with.

He is presenting the argument as it is objectively. Now, those that reject the moral law will certainly fail to see what is true. That happens with many issues.