Are Civil Rights for Gays Morally and Legally Right?
Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: May 17, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com
Date Written: May 17, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com
A May 13th Houston Chronicle editorial accused and characterized those who oppose Mayor Annise Parker's recent attempt to expand civil rights protection for "gays, homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals" as mere haters and "hateful." In fact the subtitle of the article reads, "There is little value in spreading hatred about the transgender community." Now that the city council vote on Parker's proposed ordinance will apparently be postponed until May 28th, now is the appropriate time to contemplate the genuineness of motivation for opposing civil rights coverage for gays. Are those who oppose affording civil rights minority status to homosexuals (which would be on equal par with the civil rights status already afforded to American racial minorities) purveyors of unbridled and irrational hatred? Or is there a logical and rational basis for opposing civil rights for gays? Another way of asking the question is, "Are Gay Rights Right?" (This was actually the title of a very fine book on the subject. See Roger J. Magnuson, Are Gay Rights Right?: Making Sense of the Controversy (Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1990).
Photo credit: danny.hammontree / Foter / Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
I believe that it is wrong to allow those who embrace the gay lifestyle to piggy back upon or to hijack the civil rights movement. It has long been settled law in our country that civil rights protection should be given only to those who can demonstrate an immutable characteristic, such as skin color, and that they have been historically targeted for discrimination based upon this immutable characteristic. American blacks, for example, have no problem demonstrating both of these points. Being born black is not a choice or something that can be changed throughout the course of one's life. Being black is a characteristic of one's being that not only is innate but also is innocuous or harmless or non-destructive in and of itself. American blacks can also easily and readily point to a historical pattern of societal discrimination based solely upon their immutable skin color.
Examples abound in American history, such as from pre-Civil War slavery or the Jim Crow South. Thus, civil rights for blacks make perfect sense. Gays, on the other hand, cannot convincingly make a similar case. First, the notion of the immutability of one's sexual orientation on par with one's skin color has never been satisfactorily proven. Although much has been written on this subject, suffice to say that there is such a thing as ex-gays. According to "Dr. Robert L. Spitzer–the renowned gay activist psychiatrist who in 1973 successfully managed to have homosexuality removed from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders– has published results of his new study which shows homosexual orientation can be changed to heterosexual" (Gregg Jackson, Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies: Issue by Issue Responses to the Most Common Claims of the Left from A to Z (Bridgeport, PA: JAJ, 2006), 257). According to Dr. Spitzer's findings, which were eventually published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, 200 homosexuals changed their lifestyle as a response to therapy during the five year duration of the study. (Robert L. Spitzer, "Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation," Archives of Sexual Behavior 32, no. 5 (October 2003), 403-17).
Of course, the possibility of a bonafide change out of the homosexual lifestyle comes as no surprise to the Bible-believing Christian. Two thousand years ago the Apostle Paul spoke of the reality of such a change under the Spirit's guidance and empowerment. He wrote to the Corinthians, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:9-11; italics added). Apparently, homosexuals can change their stripes just as drunkards, adulterers, and thieves can. While there is no such thing as an ex-black, there are multiple cases of ex-gays. Why? The former is an innate and immutable characteristic while the latter is a moral or sinful lifestyle choice! Second, quite unlike the innocuous or harmless nature of one's skin color, the homosexual lifestyle is a self-destructive one. According to one study:
...up to 55 percent of homosexual men with anorectal complaints have gonorrhea; 80 percent of the patients with syphilis are homosexuals. Chlamydia is found in 15 percent of asymptomatic homosexual men, and up to one third of homosexuals have active anorectal herpes simplex virus. In addition, a host of parasites, bacterial, viral, and protozoan are all rampant in the homosexual population. (Steven D. Wexner, "Sexually Transmitted Diseases of the Colon, Rectum, and Anus: The Challenge of the Nineties," Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 33, no. 12 (December 1990): 1048-62.)
Why should the law, in the form of an elevated legal right, place its approval upon a lifestyle which brings such misery and destruction to those involved in it? Third, unlike the American historical pattern of discrimination against blacks, no similar pattern exists against gays. In fact, quite the contrary. Homosexuals are among the most affluent members of contemporary American society. According to USA Today:
...homosexual couples who live together may be wealthier than hetero-sexual live-in couples, an analysis of new census numbers suggests...gay male couples appear to be particularly affluent, out-earning even married couples: Gay male couples had a $56,863 household income; Married couples, $47,012; Heterosexual unmarried couples, $37,602. (Margaret L. Usdansky, "Gay Couples, by the Numbers," USA TodayApril 12, 1993, 1A, 8A.)
It is common for gay rights activists to point to the rash of violent attacks supposedly committed against gays as evidence of a societal pattern of discrimination against homosexuals. However, the stark contrast between reality and rhetoric here is as different as night and day:
Set against the so-called epidemic of hate crimes in America are the 1,401,313 total crimes committed against persons or property in 2006. This is compared to the 9,080 "bias motivation" crimes committed in that year. "Hate crimes" account for .08 percent of the total crime problem facing America. But that's not all. Just 1,415 of the 9,080 hate crimes reported to the FBI in 2006 were identified as offenses by prejudice against the victim's sexual orientation. Crimes against homosexuals as an identified class are just .012 percent of all crimes committed in America. (John Aman, 10 Truths About Hate Crime Laws (Fort Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge, 2008), 25-26.)
Contrary to the widespread opinion perpetuated by the liberal media, even the infamous victimization and brutal murder of Matthew Shepard on October 6, 1998 had nothing to do with anti-gay bigotry due to Shepard's homosexual orientation. Separating emotional hype from the actual facts of the case has been well documented by Stephen Jimenez in the Book of Matt. ((Stephen Jimenez, The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepherd (Hanover, NH: Streetforth, 2013).))
Stephen Jimenez went to Laramie to research the story of Matthew Shepard’s murder in 2000, after the two men convicted of killing him had gone to prison, and after the national media had moved on. His aim was to write a screenplay on what he, and the rest of the nation, believed to be an open-and-shut case of bigoted violence. As a gay man, he felt an added moral imperative to tell Matthew’s story. But what Jimenez eventually found in Wyoming was a tangled web of secrets. His exhaustive investigation also plunged him deep into the deadly underworld of drug trafficking. Over the course of a thirteen-year investigation, Jimenez traveled to twenty states and Washington DC, and interviewed more than a hundred named sources. The Book of Matt is sure to stir passions and inspire dialogue as it re-frames this misconstrued crime and its cast of characters, proving irrefutably that Matthew Shepard was not killed for being gay but for reasons far more complicated — and daunting.
Even the alleged rash of teenage gay suicides supposedly brought about by an intolerant society seem to be highly exaggerated. According to USA Today:
Gay and lesbian teenagers are only slightly more likely than heterosexual kids to attempt suicide, contrary to past studies that suggest gay youths have about triple the rate of trying suicide, says a Cornell University psychologist...Studies finding that about 30% of gay adolescents have attempted suicide exaggerated the rates because they surveyed the most disturbed youngsters and didn't separate thoughts from action, says Ritch Savin-Williams. Nearly all research on the topic has drawn teens from support groups or shelters, where the most troubled gather, and has taken at face value the claim of a suicide attempt, he says. Savin-Williams' own two studies...focus on 349 students ages 17 to 25. When they said they had tried to kill themselves, he asked what method they used. He also separated out the small minority that attended support groups...Over half of reported suicide attempts turned out to be "thinking about it" rather than trying anything...The other study of 266 college men and women found that gay youths were not significantly more likely than straight classmates to have tried to take their own lives. Again, the homosexual students were more likely to report "attempts" that further questioning revealed as thoughts...Poorly designed studies that exaggerate their suicide risk "pathologize gay youth, and that's not fair to them," he says.
Thus, comparing civil rights for gays to civil rights afforded to racial minorities represents an apples and oranges comparison. Unlike race, homosexual behavior is neither innate nor innocuous. Nor can the gay rights movement point to a demonstrable societal historical pattern of discrimination that would justify granting it elevated civil rights status. What happens should we go down the road of granting elevated civil rights status to those that do not fit the traditional civil rights criteria? Inevitably, someone else's rights will be taken away. Within the Bible-believing world, it remains a legitimate opinion that homosexuality, and all other lifestyle choices departing from God's sexual standard, represents sin. After all, God has established heterosexual monogamy (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:18-25; Matt. 19:3-6) rather than homosexuality (Gen. 19:1-19; Lev. 18:22; 20:13; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Rom. 1:26-27; Jude 7) as the pattern for marriage. What happens to the First Amendment freedom of religion rights to those who hold sincerely to this conviction? The bottom line is that they are told to keep their convictions to themselves and silently sit at the back of the bus. Therefore, granting civil rights to gays would negatively impact the First Amendment rights of Christian ministries and schools as well as Christian owned-and-operated businesses. Stories, such as the following, are becoming far too common place in contemporary American society:
Jack Phillips is a baker who declined to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because his Christian belief is that marriage exists only between a man and woman. Now a Colorado judge has ordered him to bake cakes for same-sex marriages, and if Phillips refuses, he could go to jail.
Is, as the Houston Chronicle editorial board suggests, opposition to gay civil rights nothing more than unbridled bigotry fueled by irrational superstition? Hardly! There remains a logical basis for opposition to Mayor Parker's gay agenda. Homosexual, bisexual, and transgender practitioners simply do not fit the traditional civil rights criteria. Granting them civil rights status despite this reality would damage the existing and well recognized freedoms afforded to those possessing a biblical conviction on the matter. I hope and pray that the Houston city council will consider this side of the argument as they cast an important vote on May 28th.
Examples abound in American history, such as from pre-Civil War slavery or the Jim Crow South. Thus, civil rights for blacks make perfect sense. Gays, on the other hand, cannot convincingly make a similar case. First, the notion of the immutability of one's sexual orientation on par with one's skin color has never been satisfactorily proven. Although much has been written on this subject, suffice to say that there is such a thing as ex-gays. According to "Dr. Robert L. Spitzer–the renowned gay activist psychiatrist who in 1973 successfully managed to have homosexuality removed from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders– has published results of his new study which shows homosexual orientation can be changed to heterosexual" (Gregg Jackson, Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies: Issue by Issue Responses to the Most Common Claims of the Left from A to Z (Bridgeport, PA: JAJ, 2006), 257). According to Dr. Spitzer's findings, which were eventually published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, 200 homosexuals changed their lifestyle as a response to therapy during the five year duration of the study. (Robert L. Spitzer, "Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation," Archives of Sexual Behavior 32, no. 5 (October 2003), 403-17).
Of course, the possibility of a bonafide change out of the homosexual lifestyle comes as no surprise to the Bible-believing Christian. Two thousand years ago the Apostle Paul spoke of the reality of such a change under the Spirit's guidance and empowerment. He wrote to the Corinthians, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:9-11; italics added). Apparently, homosexuals can change their stripes just as drunkards, adulterers, and thieves can. While there is no such thing as an ex-black, there are multiple cases of ex-gays. Why? The former is an innate and immutable characteristic while the latter is a moral or sinful lifestyle choice! Second, quite unlike the innocuous or harmless nature of one's skin color, the homosexual lifestyle is a self-destructive one. According to one study:
...up to 55 percent of homosexual men with anorectal complaints have gonorrhea; 80 percent of the patients with syphilis are homosexuals. Chlamydia is found in 15 percent of asymptomatic homosexual men, and up to one third of homosexuals have active anorectal herpes simplex virus. In addition, a host of parasites, bacterial, viral, and protozoan are all rampant in the homosexual population. (Steven D. Wexner, "Sexually Transmitted Diseases of the Colon, Rectum, and Anus: The Challenge of the Nineties," Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 33, no. 12 (December 1990): 1048-62.)
Why should the law, in the form of an elevated legal right, place its approval upon a lifestyle which brings such misery and destruction to those involved in it? Third, unlike the American historical pattern of discrimination against blacks, no similar pattern exists against gays. In fact, quite the contrary. Homosexuals are among the most affluent members of contemporary American society. According to USA Today:
...homosexual couples who live together may be wealthier than hetero-sexual live-in couples, an analysis of new census numbers suggests...gay male couples appear to be particularly affluent, out-earning even married couples: Gay male couples had a $56,863 household income; Married couples, $47,012; Heterosexual unmarried couples, $37,602. (Margaret L. Usdansky, "Gay Couples, by the Numbers," USA TodayApril 12, 1993, 1A, 8A.)
It is common for gay rights activists to point to the rash of violent attacks supposedly committed against gays as evidence of a societal pattern of discrimination against homosexuals. However, the stark contrast between reality and rhetoric here is as different as night and day:
Set against the so-called epidemic of hate crimes in America are the 1,401,313 total crimes committed against persons or property in 2006. This is compared to the 9,080 "bias motivation" crimes committed in that year. "Hate crimes" account for .08 percent of the total crime problem facing America. But that's not all. Just 1,415 of the 9,080 hate crimes reported to the FBI in 2006 were identified as offenses by prejudice against the victim's sexual orientation. Crimes against homosexuals as an identified class are just .012 percent of all crimes committed in America. (John Aman, 10 Truths About Hate Crime Laws (Fort Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge, 2008), 25-26.)
Contrary to the widespread opinion perpetuated by the liberal media, even the infamous victimization and brutal murder of Matthew Shepard on October 6, 1998 had nothing to do with anti-gay bigotry due to Shepard's homosexual orientation. Separating emotional hype from the actual facts of the case has been well documented by Stephen Jimenez in the Book of Matt. ((Stephen Jimenez, The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepherd (Hanover, NH: Streetforth, 2013).))
Stephen Jimenez went to Laramie to research the story of Matthew Shepard’s murder in 2000, after the two men convicted of killing him had gone to prison, and after the national media had moved on. His aim was to write a screenplay on what he, and the rest of the nation, believed to be an open-and-shut case of bigoted violence. As a gay man, he felt an added moral imperative to tell Matthew’s story. But what Jimenez eventually found in Wyoming was a tangled web of secrets. His exhaustive investigation also plunged him deep into the deadly underworld of drug trafficking. Over the course of a thirteen-year investigation, Jimenez traveled to twenty states and Washington DC, and interviewed more than a hundred named sources. The Book of Matt is sure to stir passions and inspire dialogue as it re-frames this misconstrued crime and its cast of characters, proving irrefutably that Matthew Shepard was not killed for being gay but for reasons far more complicated — and daunting.
Even the alleged rash of teenage gay suicides supposedly brought about by an intolerant society seem to be highly exaggerated. According to USA Today:
Gay and lesbian teenagers are only slightly more likely than heterosexual kids to attempt suicide, contrary to past studies that suggest gay youths have about triple the rate of trying suicide, says a Cornell University psychologist...Studies finding that about 30% of gay adolescents have attempted suicide exaggerated the rates because they surveyed the most disturbed youngsters and didn't separate thoughts from action, says Ritch Savin-Williams. Nearly all research on the topic has drawn teens from support groups or shelters, where the most troubled gather, and has taken at face value the claim of a suicide attempt, he says. Savin-Williams' own two studies...focus on 349 students ages 17 to 25. When they said they had tried to kill themselves, he asked what method they used. He also separated out the small minority that attended support groups...Over half of reported suicide attempts turned out to be "thinking about it" rather than trying anything...The other study of 266 college men and women found that gay youths were not significantly more likely than straight classmates to have tried to take their own lives. Again, the homosexual students were more likely to report "attempts" that further questioning revealed as thoughts...Poorly designed studies that exaggerate their suicide risk "pathologize gay youth, and that's not fair to them," he says.
Thus, comparing civil rights for gays to civil rights afforded to racial minorities represents an apples and oranges comparison. Unlike race, homosexual behavior is neither innate nor innocuous. Nor can the gay rights movement point to a demonstrable societal historical pattern of discrimination that would justify granting it elevated civil rights status. What happens should we go down the road of granting elevated civil rights status to those that do not fit the traditional civil rights criteria? Inevitably, someone else's rights will be taken away. Within the Bible-believing world, it remains a legitimate opinion that homosexuality, and all other lifestyle choices departing from God's sexual standard, represents sin. After all, God has established heterosexual monogamy (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:18-25; Matt. 19:3-6) rather than homosexuality (Gen. 19:1-19; Lev. 18:22; 20:13; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Rom. 1:26-27; Jude 7) as the pattern for marriage. What happens to the First Amendment freedom of religion rights to those who hold sincerely to this conviction? The bottom line is that they are told to keep their convictions to themselves and silently sit at the back of the bus. Therefore, granting civil rights to gays would negatively impact the First Amendment rights of Christian ministries and schools as well as Christian owned-and-operated businesses. Stories, such as the following, are becoming far too common place in contemporary American society:
Jack Phillips is a baker who declined to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because his Christian belief is that marriage exists only between a man and woman. Now a Colorado judge has ordered him to bake cakes for same-sex marriages, and if Phillips refuses, he could go to jail.
Is, as the Houston Chronicle editorial board suggests, opposition to gay civil rights nothing more than unbridled bigotry fueled by irrational superstition? Hardly! There remains a logical basis for opposition to Mayor Parker's gay agenda. Homosexual, bisexual, and transgender practitioners simply do not fit the traditional civil rights criteria. Granting them civil rights status despite this reality would damage the existing and well recognized freedoms afforded to those possessing a biblical conviction on the matter. I hope and pray that the Houston city council will consider this side of the argument as they cast an important vote on May 28th.
Recent
Are Civil Rights for Gays Morally and Legally Right?
February 17th, 2026
The Biblical and Spiritual Significance of the Modern State of Israel
February 10th, 2026
The Privilege of Prayer - My Invocation Before the Texas House of Representatives
December 31st, 2025
The Divine Preservation of the Messianic Line: The True Meaning of the Holidays
December 26th, 2025
Why God Became Man
December 24th, 2025
Archive
2026
2025
February
March
April
July
2024
January
February
May
2023
April
May
July
September
Categories
no categories
No Comments