Why Gay Rights Should not be Considered Civil Rights.



You might know from some of my previous posts that I am somewhat in favor of 'legalizing' gay marriage because our morality should be performed from a state of freedom rather than from a state of governmental force. That is, I don't believe the government needs to define the morals of the individual, especially when the actions of an individual aren't aggressive towards another human.

However, let me make one thing clear.

I do not believe gay rights should be compared with civil rights on any sort of level equal to the black civil rights movement or gender equality. Matters of sexuality are moral issues based on actions, not a physical trait. Sexual orientation is the preference in a certain action, not some demographic trait that media has made it out to be.


The sign says, "Let me perform a certain action."

When people compare gay rights to the struggles of African Americans beginning with slavery, racism, and discrimination, it is the biggest trivialization and insult in US history. You know how much pain, injustice, and suffering had to be endured by blacks before they could have somewhat equal rights? You know that no action of their own went in to the pigmentation of their skin? That the cause of their suffering was a result of prejudice rather than their own moral choices?

Read the sign in the image above. The person wants to be allowed to perform an action, not be a certain demographic. We can't honestly compare this with the black civil rights movement where they just wanted to be treated equally based on a physical trait.

Otherwise, we could turn everything into a hate crime. Maybe I don't think it is moral for people to clip their toenails on a Thursday. Is this a hate crime? No. My belief about the morality of an action is not a matter of discrimination, but one of pondering right or wrong.

In the same way, my belief about the morality of homosexual acts is not a hate crime, but a pondering of right and wrong.

I've touched on this in a previous post, but being black is not an action. Being a woman is not an action. Homosexual acts are actions and are therefore distinguishable from other demographics.

You might argue that homosexuality is a psychological trait, and I agree that people with various psychological traits should be treated equally with one another. However, the point where a psychological trait becomes and action is when the equality has to end. If someone has a preference to be lazy, and I have a preference to work, I should reap the rewards.

If someone has a preference to be homosexual, and I have the preference to be straight, then we should both face the natural consequences of our actions. To say that we should be equal is to say that none of our actions should have consequences.

That's the difference between black rights and gay rights. Homosexual acts have natural, spiritual, and social consequences. When the government legalizes homosexuality, each individual will still be forced to face the natural consequences of their actions.

In the black rights movement, there is no natural consequence that they are forced to face because being black is a physical trait rather than one that translates into an action. Thus, the consequences forced upon a person based on the color of their skin are unjust because they are caused by no fault of that person.

The inequality between two people of different orientations are allowable because they are a result of the consequences of a rational decision made by those people.

So homosexuals being 'unequal' to heterosexuals in consequences either natural, spiritual, or social is not unjust but inequality between naturally variation in skin colors IS unjust.

Thus, gay rights should not be considered a civil right.