Those supportive of a “Gay” lifestyle like to argue that their case is the same kind of unfair discrimination experienced by African Americans up until the 1960s. By doing this, they make their case sound ‘obviously’ unfair. It’s worth noting that this has outraged many in the Black community who can immediately and clearly see that there is just no comparison between the two issues.
Racial discrimination is insidious! It demeans a human being on the basis of their ethnicity, skin colour, or even nationality by considering them less than human. Demeaning another human as being less than human – on the basis of gender, race, status, professional, ability, is intolerable! Christians were at the forefront of confronting this in England during the campaign of William Wilberforce M.P., and the American Civil Rights Movement of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. But for the LGBT (Lesbian / Gay / Bi-Sexual / Trans-gendered) activists to claim that their campaign is exactly same “human rights” “discrimination” violation as that which the Rev. Dr Martin Luther King was involved in confronting is going too far and has caused many to realise that the LGBT’s campaign for “sexual-anarchy” has nothing to do with the Civil Rights movement.
“The hijacking of the civil rights movement by homosexuals, bisexuals and gender-confused people is unacceptable. There is no legitimate comparison between skin color and sexual behavior.“
– Rev. William Owens, C.A.A.P. (The Coalition of African-American Pastors) [Source]
1. Being treated unfairly as a human being because of your skin colour has to do with what it means to be human.
Human rights begins with the right to be. That is, being human starts from the moment you exist as a zygote. Your human rights are not subject to your size, your location, your environment, your location (S.L.E.D.). This means that human rights begin the fundamental right of existence (“life”). The colour of a person’s skin has nothing to do with this. On the other hand, the assertion by LGBT activists who advocate for sexual anarchy (no moral restrictions on sexual conduct) logically violates this fundamental principle because it promotes ‘non-life’ (since sexual activity between people of the same gender can not naturally reproduce another life).
We stood, marched and fought against racial discrimination as legally and morally evil. It is a violation of the first principles of our faith that God created all men in His image, and the first principles of our nation that recognized that all men are created equal.
2. Skin colour has nothing to do with behaviour.
The colour of a person’s skin has nothing to do with morality. Whereas, how a person conducts themselves sexually has very immediate and serious moral implications.
For activists, politicians and now the highest office in the nation to link sexual behavior God calls sin to the righteous cause Martin Luther King gave his life for is abominable in and of itself. There is no civil right to do what God calls wrong.
3. A non-white person cannot be other as a person, whereas a homosexual can choose not to behave homosexually (as thousands have).
Behaviour is not identity. Skin colour is not about behaviour. Therefore, skin colour is about a person’s identity. Conversely, being LGBT is intrinsically about what a person does. Therefore, being a LGBT is not a person’s identity. As a former homosexual, Sy Rogers, often points out, when he was a practisin homosexual he felt this was his identity. He felt he had no choice other than same-sex attraction. As he came to see that his primary identity was a human, not as a homosexual, he was able to distinguish identity from behaviour. And Sy Rogers is not the only person to have done this. Many of those who have struggled with same-sex attraction have found inner peace by choosing not to yield to what their consciences tell them is morally wrong. They have discovered their identity is their humanity not their sexual preferences.
4. Being non-white has nothing to do with any relationship a person may be in, whereas it is vitually contingent for those claiming to be homosexual (LGBT). Racial discrimination has to do with the individual‘s identity. Homosexuality has to do with relationship-lifestyle.
This glaring difference between Racial discrimination and the assertion by LGBT activists is one of the main reasons why Same-Gender ‘Marriage’ can never be considered a human right because rights fundamentally apply to individuals and are by nature negative (that is, Human Rights identify what can not be done to another person). Yet, LGBT activists unceasingly promote the faulty notion that their “couple rights” are “human rights” and rarely called out for this.
The great travesty committed by LGBT activists who identify their cause with the African-American Civil Rights Movement, is that actual racial discrimination still being perpetrated! Reserving marriage, or more correctly- preserving marriage, is not an act of unfair discrimination. In the same way that a circle is a circle because it is a circle (and not a square), marriage is the union of one man with one woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life because marriage is the union of one man with one woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life, and is not the union of just any possible combination of people or otherwise.
Dr. Andrew Corbett
6th August 2012