Why Gay Rights Is Not the Same as Civil Rights for Blacks, Part 2

(Read Part 1 here or here.)

Some readers may brand me homophobic for the views espoused in this article. I do not appreciate the label, which is similar to how some blacks label "racist" any non-black person who disagrees with their ideas. Let it be know that I am for the equal protection of all people under the law. I do not advocate the mistreatment of homosexuals because of their sexual orientation. For the record, I have homosexual friends. One of them recently asked to tape me for his TV program. I have lived under the same roof with a homosexual couple, who are two of the finest, funniest people I know. In fact, I can honestly say, if one of my children were homosexual, I would maintain a loving relationship with that child.

My beef is not with homosexuals in general, but with gay activists and their heterosexual sympathizers who seek to twist our arms towards their agenda, or force us to pay a high price for daring to oppose their relentless attempts to legislate homosexuality. Let it be said that most homosexuals do not fall into this activist camp. Indeed, some homosexuals actually disagree with the push to gain special rights for themselves.

When activists tell us that gay rights is no different from civil rights for blacks, they want us to respond in the affirmative, or risk being regarded as intolerant, homophobic, offensive, haters, etc.

Accused or not, I still argue that a reasonable observation of the basic elements of equal rights for blacks quickly reveal that the comparison to gays rights does not hold water. Indeed, activists have latched on to the civil rights bandwagon, because it is their best chance of garnering the sympathy they need to succeed in their cause. Let's continue from where we left off in Part 1 of this article.

5. Segregation

There was a time in America when restaurants, hotels, and other facilities displayed signs like "For Whites Only", "Colored Section", etc. Have homosexuals, lesbians, transgender and bisexuals ever been subjected to such discriminatory displays? Has any homosexual in America ever gotten on a bus or train and read a sign that says, "Gay Section", or "Heterosexuals Only"? Have schools ever been segregated along lines of homosexual students being separated from their heterosexual fellow students?

6. The Civil Rights Struggle

In their struggle for true civil rights that are actually found in the Constitution of the United States, blacks and their white friends were sprayed, had dogs unleashed on them, suffered floggings at the hand of law enforcement officers. Where is the equivalent of such a struggle for homosexuals? Where is the Rosa Park moment of the homosexual agenda? And who is the Martin Luther King Jr of the homosexual movement? Where is the "I Have A Dream" speech of the gay rights movement?

They call the demand to legalize or moralize sex between two men or two women a right on the same plane as what was denied black people? The equivalence robs some of us as bordering on sacrilege. Yes, I know I may be sued or jailed one day soon for sharing these views, but I do not fear that one bit. In fact, I may have lost some friends already for publishing my thoughts; I don't enjoy that, but it's worth the pain.

7. Former Status

There are many former homosexuals, but there are no former blacks. Also, there are gays who have proven to control their homosexual desires or tendencies temporarily, or long-term. By contrast, a black person cannot control or temper his blackness, whether temporarily or for a lifetime. The reason is that blackness is exclusively a matter of identity, whereas homosexuality is behavioral, though stemming from an innate bent.

8. The Marriage Test

When on May 8, 2012, North Carolina voted by a whopping 61% to 39% voted to define marriage in that state's constitution as a union between one man and one woman, some gay activists compared the outcome to North Carolina banning "interracial marriage" in the past. Another example of how eager these activists are to usurp the civil rights agenda for their cause.

This misguided comparison has tricked many blacks into sympathizing with the agenda of civil union or homosexual marriage. Some blacks are helping the campaign to win for homosexuals in this generation what blacks won for our people in the previous. I understand the thinking: black civil rights leaders do not want to be called hypocrites for denying to homosexuals what they won for their own people.

But is marriage between a black-and-white couple really the same as union between two men or two women? Is "gay marriage" morally or ethically on par with "biracial marriage"?

Years ago, in my ethics class, if I recall correctly, I was introduced to a simple litmus test to determine if a given behavior is really ethical or right: What if EVERYONE were to behave that way, would societies EVERYWHERE benefit? It is the test of universality.

Let's apply this test to "interracial" marriage, then to "gay marriage". If the entire human race were to switch wholesale to "interracial marriage", would the human race survive? A white husband and a black woman, or vice versa, can biologically reproduce a baby, and keep perpetuating the human race.

Now, let us propose homosexual union as the universal norm for marriage among humans. Would that form of marriage or sexual activity guarantee that humankind continue to thrive? The answer is obvious. Two men or two women cannot biologically reproduce a human baby, and when reproductive cycle ceases, humankind eventually becomes extinct. How can that be a good thing for all of us?

We know that not procreation is not the only reason for marriage or sex. And not every heterosexual union reproduces a human baby. There are options like adoption, surrogate mothers, and test-tube babies, which are commendable for couples who are infertile. Also, there are heterosexual couples who do not want to have children for various reasons. I get that. But that's the exception, not the rule, and the rule of procreation as an inherent purpose for marriage has preserved homosapiens thus far. Why normalize the exception when the norm has served to preserve the human race for thousands of years?

When homosexual activists and their sympathizers draw a straight line between black civil rights and their agenda, we should be courageous enough to let them know that they are belittling the significant, co-opting the special, and usurping what was won by the blood of honorable martyrs. I see in their political craftiness to grab the civil rights trophy a twisted form of envy directed at the authentic civil rights that blacks won. That's why I'm not falling for the lie that "gay rights" equal civil rights, that "gay marriage" is the same as "interracial marriage". Theirs is a reasoning that is mostly emotional, sensational and sentimental. But good feelings are not a sufficient basis for this grand proposal to redesign human civilization, and drag us all along, against our will.