Admission from the Left About the Homosexuality = Race Analogy


Editor’s note: this was first published at IllinoisFamily.org.

The new website Barbwire carries many of my articles.  In my recent piece on “Independence Day Parades and Barbarism” I wrote, “Opposition to celebrations of homoerotic predispositions, activity, and relationships bears not even the remotest relation to racism because homosexuality is nothing like race.”

In the comments section of Barbwire, someone who proudly calls himself “Twisted Mister” wrote, “Actually, that’s not true. Homosexuality and race are, indeed, analogous in that both groups have been victims of discrimination, hatred and violence in our culture.”

Hallelujah, finally a tidbit of truth inadvertently leaks out from the bastions of tarradiddling.

First, a few quick clarifications are in order: 1. Hatred of persons is never justified, 2. Other than in war and self-defense, violence is not justified, 3. Unprovoked violent acts are illegal and should be prosecuted, and 4. Moral disapproval of particular forms of activity is wholly different from hatred of persons.

These truths should go without saying, but the ignorant or devious among us, like Twisted Mister, have been so effective in promoting twisted untruths that repeated clarifications are required.

What is most important in Twisted Mister’s response is that finally someone on the Left admits that homosexuality per se is not analogous to race per se. He admits that when the Left claims that homosexuality is akin to race what they really mean is that the negative view society held of racial minorities is akin to the negative view society holds of homosexuals–or more accurately, of homosexual activity.

The analogy is between society’s attitudes toward each of the two conditions. Society disapproved of dark skin or African descent and society disapproves of homosexuality. The problem with the homosexuality=race analogy should now be apparent: the particular natures of each culturally disapproved condition bear no similarities. And it is the nature of a condition that determines whether a particular moral assessment is correct and determines whether the act of moral assessment even makes sense.

While it is unjust to hurl epithets or physically abuse those who choose to center their identity on their sexual feelings and activity, it is right and appropriate for society to assess the morality of the volitional sexual acts that constitute particular conditions (e.g., “minor-attraction”/”intergenerational intimacy,” polyamory, or homoeroticism).

It is not appropriate or even rational, however, to disapprove of conditions that are behaviorally neutral like race. With regard to race, there is simply nothing to morally assess since morality is germane only to behavior.

What Twisted Mister and his fellow dogmatists are insisting is that of all the conditions constituted by volitional acts (sexual and non-sexual), homosexuality is the only one that must remain exempt from moral assessment. They are demanding that society treat homosexuality as if it’s a condition analogous to race–which it is manifestly not.

Or alternatively, they’re arguing that homosexual activity is inherently moral, which, of course, is not a fact. It is a moral belief that neither they nor government agents (e.g., public school teachers) have any right to impose on all citizens through policy, law, or public education.

If cultural disapproval of a condition constituted by volitional sexual acts were inherently and always wrong (and akin to racism), then cultural disapproval of polyamory, zoophilia, and scores of other paraphilias is wrong and akin to racism. That, my friends, makes for an argument with a very buttery slope.

BarbWire Books is pleased to announce

Be Spent

Winning the Fight for Freedom's Survival

America stands at the edge of suicide. There is a struggle within our soul that is more dangerous than any external threat we face. We are walking down a path that puts us in direct conflict with the very God we relied on to establish this great nation. Is there a more frightening thought? This book is an invitation to discover your role within God's plan for America; to be part of a movement of renewal; to Be Spent in service to God and your neighbor. Only that type of serious, somber, deliberate, sacrificial commitment to God has the power to rekindle the love of truth necessary for freedom's survival in our land.


Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More

  • Charlie_Feather

    Well, Laurie, that is one point of view on the matter. But, I have seen gays argue that homosexuality is an inborn condition every bit as much as racial characteristics.

    • Laurie Higgins

      No one makes the argument that homosexuality is 100% heritable in the same way that skin color or race is. Some argue that same-sex attraction may be shaped to some degree by biochemical influences, just as predispositions for substance abuse and aggression may be. But unlike with race/skin color, homosexuality has a behavioral component, which is perfectly legitimate to assess morally.

      Same-sex attraction MAY be influenced by biochemistry, but that doesn’t make homoerotic activity inherently and automatically moral. No one would argue that the potential influence of biochemical factors in the development of aggressive feelings, or selfish feelings, or sexual attraction to multiple people concurrently renders aggressive, selfish, or polyamorous acts automatically and inherently moral.

      It is not the influence of biochemistry that determines the morality of a condition. It is the nature of particular behaviors regardless of biochemical influences that determine an action’s morality. Science tells us nothing about morality.

      It would be very dangerous to argue that all feelings shaped by biochemical factors are automatically and inherently moral. No sane person would argue such a position.

      • Charlie_Feather

        I understand what you’re saying, however, the point I was making is that gays make the analogy to race more on the basis of inborn traits (Born that way) and less so on the basis of moral disapproval. They usually cite Loving v. Virginia and slavery or Jim Crow when making the the analogy to moral disapproval, but these are far more complex arguments requiring a a deeper analysis of the premisses and not invoking questions of race so much as legalities and rights, rather than the more easily acceptable, junk, scientific claim that one is “born that way,” which even I think has some merit. They claim that homosexuality is not to be understood as behavior, but as an inborn characteristic, thus, the cheap comparison to race.

        I agree that, however one is born and whatever one might feel, these are not excuses for bad behavior. To which gays retort, “It’s not bad behavior.”

        I’ve enjoyed your articles, by the way, and have debated others over these quite a bit. Any idea why so many comments have been deleted?

        • Laurie Higgins

          I’m sorry. I’m not involved with the administrative aspects of the website.

    • helligusvart

      People have argued that they are Napoleon. Of course, they were in mental institutions…

  • Rob T

    When Twisted Mister says that race and sexual orientation are analogous in one way, he is not “admitting” that they aren’t alike or analogous in other ways. That’s something you added, something he did not say. Basically, you’re bearing false witness against him.

    • Laurie Higgins

      I said that Twisted Mister “inadvertently” admitted that homosexuality per se is not analogous to race per se. No false witness.

      • Rob T

        Then can you quote the bit where he admitted that? Because, as I said originally, when Twisted Mister says that race and sexual orientation are analogous in one way, he is not “admitting” that they aren’t alike or analogous in other ways.

  • tomd

    No one on the left is saying that sexual orientation is equivalent to race. Just as they’re not saying that gender is equivalent to race. Or that religion is equivalent to race. But forms of discrimination have much in common.

    It’s nice that Laurie is catching up to the rest of us.

  • tzika

    I have yet to see you’re side admit that one thing they both share in common is opposition from the religious sect. People persecuted blacks for years based on outdated biblical interpretation (see Curse of Ham). Saying that was wrong at the time doesn’t change the fact that religion was grounds for denying people civil rights.