Shouldn’t homosexuals have rights, too?

Homosexual persons are entitled to human rights in the same way that heterosexual persons are.

Equality of persons does not mean equality of acts.1 When homosexual activists lobby for equality of homosexual persons and heterosexual persons, they are, in fact, arguing that homosexual conduct should not be treated any less favourably than heterosexual conduct. However, this cannot be, as it disregards the differences between homosexual and heterosexual conduct and relationships, and the consequences of homosexual conduct on society at large (see Qn.9, 25 & 26).

The right to exercise freedom of will does not mean an absence of consequences resulting from one’s choice of actions. It is important to exercise conventional wisdom when discussing the philosophy of rights: What is permissible is not always beneficial.2 This can be seen in the adverse consequences of sexual activity – whether homosexual or heterosexual – outside of the protective boundaries of marriage as intended and ordained by God.

According human rights does not mean providing every legal right. According equal legal rights to homosexual persons appears at first glance to place them on equal footing as heterosexual persons. However, it actually serves to privilege homosexual persons as a protected class because they would enjoy the special rights to marry persons of the same sex and thereby receive the same legal benefits as a heterosexual married couple, and to be recognized as a family unit with the right to adopt children despite both parents being of the same sex.

In order to create public perception that they represent a significant minority whose interests should legitimately be allowed to alter social norms and the law, homosexual activists would frequently cite a figure of up to 10% of the population identifying as homosexual.3, 4 To the contrary, less than 3% identify themselves as LGBT:

  • The National Health Interview Survey, which is the U.S. government’s premier tool for annually assessing Americans’ health and behaviours, found that 1.6% of adults self-identify as gay or lesbian and 0.7% consider themselves bisexual.5
  • 2.4% of adults in London identify themselves as Lesbian, Gay or Bisexual, with the figure falling to 1.5% in the rest of the UK.6
  • 1.2% of Australian adults identified as homosexual.7

Despite being a very small minority, homosexual activists and their sympathisers have met with great success and gained vast global recognition for their movement in the past decade alone, largely due to their comprehensive and united strategies.

 

Endnotes 
1. Family.Foundation.Future, The LGBT Agenda (January 2013)
2. 1 Corinthians 6:12
3. Metropolitan Man Initiative, Sex between Men in Your City (International Planned Parenthood Federation, August 2011, p9)
4. Gallup Politics, LGBT Percentage Highest in D.C., Lowest in North Dakota (State of the States, 15 February 2013)
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Sexual Orientation and Health Among U.S. Adults: National Health Interview Survey 2013 (National Health Statistics Report No. 77, 15 July 2014)
6. Office for National Statistics, Integrated Household Survey: Experimental Statistics (Statistical Bulletin, April 2011 – March 2012)
7. Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University, Sex in Australia: Australian Study of Health and Relationships (Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, April 2003, Vol. 27(2))

By not accepting homosexuality, aren’t we being intolerant or discriminatory?

Those who suggest that homosexuality is wrong are typically called “intolerant”, “hateful”, “bigoted”, “right-wing”, “ignorant” or “discriminatory”. On the contrary, homosexual activists are hailed as champions of “tolerance”, “diversity”, “equality”, “progressiveness”, “freedom”, and “love”.

Ironically, in countries where there is now greater acceptance of homosexuality through anti-discrimination laws and legalized same-sex unions, there is great intolerance of those who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle and agenda.

Tolerance isn’t agreement. A person who is tolerant is someone who believes that his own views are true and that another person’s views are false, but even though he disagrees with the other’s viewpoint, will still respect the other person and the other’s right to disagree with him and believe something different. In recent times, however, society has taken on a different understanding of “tolerance”, such that no one should ever say that anyone else’s viewpoints are wrong, because it would be “intolerant” to do so. This has led to fear of expressing disagreement (especially with popular trends, culture and ideas) lest one is negatively labelled. 1

If there were no difference in views to begin with, the first person would actually be agreeing with – not tolerating – the other person. Tolerance is required only where there is a difference of opinion, and it would be intolerant to not believe that others have the right to disagree.2

A truly tolerant person is one who, despite disagreeing with the homosexual lifestyle, nonetheless respects the homosexual person and his/her right to make his/her own choices.

Tolerance does not mean we have to agree with, much less endorse and promote, homosexuality. Being tolerant towards homosexuals is not the same as being pro-gay.

Tolerance isn’t necessarily good. There are times when it is important to show intolerance and take a stand on an issue. For example, a responsible and loving parent would not tolerate disrespect from their young child; conversely, should the child show disrespect, the parent would still love and accept him. Thus, it is possible to accept a homosexual person and their differences without approving of their homosexual acts.

Discrimination isn’t necessarily bad. Discrimination against anti-social behaviours (e.g., mistreatment of animals or reckless driving) is necessary to show that they are unacceptable. The Singapore government has loosened controls over forms of entertainment and material with sympathetic homosexual characters when in the past, more caution was exercised lest homosexuality is portrayed as a natural and acceptable form of sexuality. This seems to have led to more positive attitudes towards homosexuals as well as greater acceptance and celebration of homosexuality in Singapore.3 However, eliminating discrimination against unnatural sexual acts will eventually lead to complete indiscrimination, where no one outcome is considered better or worse than another; all behaviour is equally good. This argument is being used by LGBT activists to advocate for similar recognition of paedophilia.4/5

We should distinguish between right and wrong even while being non-discriminatory.

Endnotes
1. I on Singapore, Tolerance and “Tolerance”: Two Versions of Tolerance (I on Singapore, 15 January 2013)
2. Ibid.
3. Benjamin H. Detenber, Shirley S. Ho, Rachel L. Neo, Shelly Malik and Mark Cenite, Influence of Value Predispositions, Interpersonal Contact, and Mediated Exposure on Public Attitudes Toward Homosexuals in Singapore (Asian Journal of Social Psychology September 2013, Vol 16(3), pp181-196)