Sexual Rights Vs. Civil Rights: Are they really the same?

 

This is an updated reprint of an earlier Natural Light Network article. Advertisements accompanying this article are automatically generated based on content, and may promote opinions regarding the subject matter which differ significantly from those of the author.

As an African American who grew up in the south during the fifties and sixties, I am having a difficult time making sense of the widely held belief that the gay liberation movement’s efforts to gain approval for homosexual marriages is no different than the life and death struggles black people have had to overcome to secure rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

 

“The most important civil rights issue of this generation!” is the way one gay activist recently characterized the controversy over same-sex marriages.

 

One of the problems I have with trying to make a connection between discrimination against gays and discrimination against black people in the United States is that the gay community is comprised of people who have chosen a particular lifestyle, while membership in the black community depends solely on parentage.

To become a part of the gay subculture, a person must simply declare his or her preference for intimate relationships with same-sex partners. African Americans, however, from the moment of conception, are defined by racial heritage.

           

So how do you begin to compare the social rejection experienced by homosexuals, due to their own free will choices, to the plight of a group of people that has endured over four hundred years of persecution because of inherited physical characteristics?

           

Is the gay community’s campaign to legitimize same-sex unions really the same as Black America’s organized efforts to achieve full citizenship, or is this another example of a statement being repeated so many times that it becomes accepted as truth?

           

Ironically, the more I search for similarities in the experiences of blacks and gays in this country, the more differences I find. To my knowledge, no gay person has ever been denied an education, or the right to vote, or admittance to a medical facility, or housing in certain neighborhoods because of government sanctioned discrimination against homosexuals.

 

And how many gay rights organizations have had to recover from their leaders and members being viciously beaten, falsely imprisoned, and/or lynched for daring to challenge the social order? Have they ever had to decide whether to keep fighting after their homes, offices, and places of worship were attacked in the dead of night by terrorist bombers intent on keeping homosexuals in their place?

 

Also, it would certainly help to identify similarities in the experiences of gays and African Americans if there were thousands upon thousands of verifiable incidents where homosexuals were routinely charged higher than market rates for loans, profiled by police and pulled over for driving while gay, or incarcerated for offenses that would normally result in probation for the average white citizen.

           

Another aspect of the gay civil rights vs. black civil rights comparison that confounds me is the issue of marriage. Gay activists and supporters have managed to saturate American media outlets with a message that says that prohibiting same-sex marriages is virtually the same as refusing to allow blacks to marry whites.

 

Their efforts have paid off in dividends. According to some polls, roughly half of California residents now agree that the gay marriage and inter-racial marriage analogy is accurate, and five U.S. states have legalized same-sex marriages.

The problem with the conclusion that a homosexual marriage should be afforded the same respect, rights, and privileges as the union of a man and a woman of different races is that it defies common sense. Why should a lifestyle that would, if universally adopted, lead to the extinction of the human race be considered equal to a way of life that was designed to ensure the continuation of humanity?

If everybody on the planet chose a same-sex spouse, mankind’s time on earth would come to an end. By contrast, if every man and woman decided to marry someone of a different race and gender, human beings would still have a future.

The list of inconsistencies in the comparison of the gay experience and the black experience in America is so extensive that it is truly amazing that anyone could be swayed by an argument that has no basis in fact.          

But if it is politically correct for gay rights activists, in seeking support for their cause, to employ a strategy that essentially trivializes the centuries of depravation, intimidation, torture, mayhem, and murder that black people in this country have been subjected to, then it should be equally acceptable for a black man to suggest that there is another American subculture that the gay community has much more in common with historically than they ever will with African Americans.

           

To illustrate this point, let us revisit the coming of age of two eighteen year old boys in Los Angeles during the 1960s, the heyday of the free love movement, widespread drug experimentation, and a time when people who engaged in homosexual acts were still considered criminals. We’ll call one of them Gary, and the other, Stan. Both boys come from hard working middle class families.

Gary is an aspiring actor who is being wooed and pursued by a casting agent determined to add Gary to his long list of sexual conquests.

Stan is a fledgling rock guitarist being introduced to the world of hard drugs by an older, burned out musician/dope dealer who wants to tap into Stan’s savings account to help finance the purchase of a large quantity of heroin.

 

The casting agent, promising to introduce Gary to influential people in show business, takes the boy to gay parties, gay bars, and finally to a gay bath house.

Stan goes with his musician friend to wild, drug fueled parties where junkie girls will do just about anything for a “fix”, and eventually to a “shooting gallery” (a place where addicts can buy drugs and/or rent syringes).

 

Both boys are impressed by the number of celebrities they run into during their respective forays into unfamiliar and often dangerous territory. They enjoy the challenges of learning to decipher the coded lingo and inside jokes that are beyond the comprehension of outsiders.

 

The drama and excitement associated with learning the ropes in subcultures dominated by rule breakers and risk takers proves to be irresistible. Like moths attracted to a forest fire, both Gary and Stan venture headlong into worlds from which few return.

Eventually, Gary is seduced by the casting director and discovers that he likes the concept of sex for the pure sake of sex--no commitments, no responsibilities, just raw, pure, uncomplicated sexual gratification.

Stan tries his first injection of heroin and falls in love with the high. Convinced that the drug will make him a more creative guitarist, and that he will double the money he invests in the heroin purchase, Stan withdraws a sizable chunk of his college savings from his bank account and hands it over to his “friend.”

 

The possibility of becoming addicted to the lifestyles they’re experimenting with is the farthest thing from the boys’ minds.

 

After months of deception to conceal their activities, the secret lives of both boys are exposed when they are arrested during separate police raids: Gary at a gay bath house, and Stan at a “shooting gallery.”

Their families are devastated. Dreams of normal lives for their sons and healthy grandchildren are shattered. The parents go through the inevitable stages of shock, denial, anger, guilt, and grief. They post bail for the boys, hire the best lawyers they can afford, and make every court appearance with their sons.

Because of their clean records, both boys are placed on probation with certain stipulations: Gary will be required to see a psychiatrist on a regular basis, and Stan will have to complete a drug rehab program.

The boys try gamely to fulfill the requirements of their probation, mostly to appease their parents. But they never fully accept the judgment that their personal pursuits of pleasure should be categorized as intolerable behavior. After a few months of strict curfews and having to account for every waking moment of their lives, both Gary and Stan have had enough of unrelenting parental supervision.

Gary gets a job as a waiter, moves in with a group of gay friends, and resumes his efforts to establish an acting career.

 

Stan converts his accessible assets to cash, rents a small apartment with a young, drug addicted model/actress, and goes back to using and dealing heroin.

At this stage of the scenario, the comparisons between the lives of Gary and Stan come into clear focus: the majority of average citizens considers their behavior disgusting; the judicial system labels them criminals; the medical establishment concludes that they suffer from mental disorders; and religious authorities promise them eternal fire and brimstone if they don’t change their ways.

And if you were to ask Gary and Stan why they chose to return to lifestyles that they knew would destroy their relationships with family and old friends, you would get variations of the same response: “I have tried to change, but I can’t help being the way I am.”

The most tragic comparison of the lifestyles the boys chose, however, is that both Gary and Stan, along with countless other intra-venous drug users and gay men, become infected with HIV, suffer horribly, and succumb to complications of AIDS.

Over the years, American authorities have exhausted their options in attempting to persuade homosexuals and heroin addicts to change their behavior. Incarceration, psychiatry, religion, nothing has worked to any measurable degree. No threat of punishment or promise of reward has proven to be enough of an incentive to prevent the overwhelming majority who try to lead normal lives from relapsing.

 

It is interesting to note, however, that, while society has failed to change the behavior of homosexuals, homosexuals have been very successful at changing society’s reactions to their behavior: laws banning same-sex coupling have been replaced by guarantees of sexual freedom for consenting adults ; a growing number of religious organizations have not only taken back what they said about homosexuals burning in hell, many of them now elevate openly gay members to influential positions within the church hierarchy; and the medical profession has completely retracted its former characterization of homosexuality as a form of mental illness.

 

The only remaining obstacle between homosexuals and complete social acceptance is public perception of their lifestyle. State sanctioned marriages between same-sex couples, especially after a generation or two, would probably eliminate this final hurdle.

 

But what would we do about the rights of other sexual subcultures?

 

At the core of the argument in favor of homosexual marriage is the contention that sexual gratification is a birthright, and that people with non-traditional desires should have the same rights as heterosexuals to pursue fulfillment. “How would you feel if you couldn’t marry the one you love?” has become a catch phrase in a well financed campaign to permanently amend the definition of marriage.

 

This philosophy, however, could also be used to justify behaviors that deviate even farther from the social norm than homosexuality. And if the gay community succeeds in overturning the definition of marriage, then we should prepare ourselves to make decisions about other subcultures vying for sexual equality.

 

Pedophiles, for instance, having witnessed the change in status of homosexuals from deranged criminals to normal citizens, are already organizing to persuade society to de-criminalize their behavior by lowering, or abolishing altogether, the age of consent. The next step would be to have their attraction to children re-classified as an “orientation” rather than a mental disorder.

 

One group seeking to eliminate laws against pedophilia, The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), states on its website at www.nambla.org: “We believe sexual feelings are a positive life force. We support the rights of youth as well as adults to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies.” And they go on to say: “We call for the fundamental reform of the laws regarding relations between youths and adults.”  

 

Sounds like a long shot, but so did homosexual marriage twenty years ago.

 

Regardless of the pace of “progress” for NAMBLA members, however, men seeking intimate relationships with underage males have already benefited from the legalization of same-sex marriages. In addition to the toys, attention, and porn used to seduce young boys, pedophiles can now include images of male couples sealing their wedding vows with a kiss.

 

Another subculture society may one day have to consider for sexual equality is comprised of people who enjoy unnatural intimacy with animals. It isn’t clear at this time how organized they are, but they do have a website filled with graphic photos and ads for beastiality porn. (If you have a strong stomach and are curious about how far some human beings will go to achieve sexual gratification, visit www.beastiality.com.)

 

While the list of sexual subcultures currently experiencing discrimination in America is certainly more extensive than what is presented here, no list would be complete without the group that has no website, gets the least amount of attention, and has the lowest probability of fulfilling their sexual desires. Ironically, this group is made up of heterosexuals who happen to be confined in U.S. prisons.

Heterosexual American inmates claim that they are being punished more harshly for their offenses than homosexuals convicted of similar crimes because, unlike their gay counterparts, they are denied the opportunity to establish and maintain intimate relationships while serving their time.

 

Is their argument credible, or is this merely an attempt by another subculture of American life to jump on the sexual equality bandwagon while the jumping is good?

 

The above categories of sexual subcultures are clearly defined. Normal parents would advise their children to avoid joining any of them.

 

But what about the gray areas that will be created if the legal definition of marriage is permanently changed from a union of “one man and one woman” to a union of “two persons”? Will the legalization of homosexual marriages make it possible for same-sex family members to unite with each other in holy matrimony?

 

Incest laws, enacted to protect against offspring deformities associated with inbreeding, would become irrelevant. And there would be no logical reason to prohibit these types of marriages.

 

Needless to say, the ability to define acceptable forms of sexual gratification, once the process of normalizing abnormal behavior achieves wider acceptance, will become increasingly more difficult.  

 

How will society determine where to draw the line on the intimate pleasures of our relatives, neighbors, co-workers, and fellow citizens?

 

The possibility of having to periodically re-define normal human sexuality, however, would be eliminated if reasonable people simply decide to leave the line where it has remained for the vast majority of cultures since the beginning of recorded time: male/female relationships on one side, everything else on the other.

 

But we will miss the opportunity to utilize common sense in debates about gay marriage if homosexual propagandists are given free reign to continue advancing their agenda with unchallenged, ridiculous comparisons and outright lies regarding the issue of sexual rights vs. civil rights.

 

Paul Howard Nicholas

Natural Light Network

 

For more from the author, click on Raised in Texas

Comments

[Vennetta]

Good morning, People are going do what they want to do and that is the bottom line rather it is correct or incorrect on being human. Wishing you a wonderful day and great weekend.

Vennetta~

[Earl Nero]

There isn't a simple answer to this debate (as expected). First let me say that I don't think that Civil Rights and Sexual Rights are parallel struggles. There are rights that were, and in some cases still are, denied or challenged based on race. In the civil rights arena we still have to protect voting rights (even though Clarence Thomas doesn't think so). We still have to fight for quality education and fair housing. These are not issues the gay community has to deal with.
With that said, as a Black man growing up in America in the era we grew up in, it's hard for me to discriminate against anyone because they are "different" from the status quo. I know that this is a controversial statement but I think the acceptance of this perspective is based on whether you believe homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle or you believe you're born homosexual.
If you believe the former I think it is easier to treat homosexuality differently and say they can avoid the "different" treatment by making better choices. If you believe the latter then you are more likely to feel they're being discriminated against because they can no more change their livestyle than Black people can change their skin color to avoid discrimination.

[Janice Watson]

What civil rights of homosexuals are denied by society?