|Column Archives||Biography||Books/CDs||Publishing Info||Opt In/Out||Feedback||Home|
|The New Civil Rights:
Equating Race and Sexual Preference
In the Massachusetts state senate debate over gay marriage, Sen. Dianne Wilkerson made a tearful plea to give homosexual couples the same status as traditional husband-wife marriage. Reflecting on her experience as a black woman growing up in Arkansas, she declared that denying gays anything but equal recognition was akin to racism.
"I know the pain of being less than equal, and I cannot and will not impose that status on anyone else," a teary-eyed Wilkerson said. "I was but one generation removed from an existence in slavery. I could not in good conscience ever vote to send anyone to that place from which my family fled."
The homosexual community has long sought to become the next struggling civil rights group. But is it truthful and proper to equate sexual preference with race?
Last week, I spent a great deal of time with former Ambassador Alan Keyes, one of the most brilliant and articulate leaders of our time. We discussed many important issues facing our country right now, including gay marriage.
Dr. Keyes believes that the sex-as-race argument is merely an attempt to remove all moral responsibility from sexual activity.
"When I woke up this morning, I was a black guy. When I go to bed tonight, I will be a black guy," he said during a taping of the Life Today television program. "This is something over which we have no control....Any action that we cannot control, we can no longer be held morally responsible for."
This logic extends to all sexual activity. If one can be "born gay" and, therefore, a slave to certain sexual acts, then certainly another person can be born adulterous, polygamous, incestuous or pedophilic. To fight for homosexual "civil rights" carries us down a path that leads to a society free from the boundaries of sexual morality and responsibility.
If sex is not a sacred procreative and pleasurable act designed for a man and a woman in lifelong marital commitment, then it is simply a means of self-gratification.
Keyes argues that adults do have the ability to control their passions and make rational, responsible decisions. If, for sexual purposes, they cannot control their passions and be morally judged, then we must accept sexual activity in virtually every form.
While it may be easy to dismiss this line of rationale as the overly zealous worries of a moral crusader, it is not a notion new to those in favor of removing the social stigmas and legal repercussions of such activities.
Psychiatrist Charles Moser of San Francisco's Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality co-authored a paper entitled "DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal." In it, he argued that people whose sexual interests are abnormal, culturally forbidden or religiously condemned should not, for those reasons, be labeled mentally ill. Translation: No sex is immoral and, therefore, no sexual activity should be considered wrong. "Any sexual interest," Moser commented, "can be healthy and life-enhancing."
When we throw out traditional marriage and disregard sexual responsibility and morality, we face the specter of a new sexual revolution with horrific ramifications. The Bible addresses sexual impurity (acts outside of traditional marriage) as sin against God's law and will. If society and judicial activists defy the law of God, then defying man's law is sure to follow. Indeed, we are already seeing it as the mayor of San Francisco blatantly defies both God and man by publicly breaking the law and granting marriage licenses to over 2,500 gay couples. What's next?
"This is not just a slippery surface," Keyes asserts, "this is leaping off of a cliff into the abyss. There is nothing to stop us from hitting bottom."
Before we leap, we must look at the facts and not fall victim to the notion that race equals sexual preference. Sex is still a matter of choice and, therefore, subject to moral judgment.