Implicit in the demands for homosexual rights is the proposition that homosexuals are a new minority group in America. The same sort of civil rights movement that fought discrimination based on the color of skin is now being trotted out to defend the right to sexual preference.
The moral, historical and cultural arguments that compelled a nation to take notice of equality of race is sorely lacking in the case for recognizing the homosexual “minority.” The kind of confusion about the meaning of minority status is evident. For example, the blog The New Civil Rights Movement advocates homosexual rights and “marriage” as an absolute freedom. As far as this group is concerned, homosexuals are a persecuted minority that deserve new legal protections. On what social or ethical grounds they can be considered a minority community is never defined. Instead, freedom is defined almost exclusively as freedom of choice (in this case, sexual preference).
We have come to believe that the act of making choices is intrinsically virtuous when, in fact, many of our choices are extrinsically vicious, such as pedophilia, prostitution and pornography. Such “choices” are still unlawful, whether a crime is committed in one’s own home or at the local mall. The reason is not hard to find: Sexual activity is not constitutional right that society must protect. Civil rights leaders fought for a fundamental principle, not for a mere choice.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the homosexual rights campaign is that we are no longer permitted to regard homosexual behavior as a moral subject that deserves careful and deliberate consideration. The arguments over whether homosexuality is genetic or whether homosexual parenting harms or enables a child’s development are far from over. Instead, we are presented with the conversation-stopper called “homosexual rights.” By presenting the issue as one of minority rights, activists attempt to end the discussion rather than win it.
DANIEL H. WILLIAMS