Skip to content

Artificial ‘GLBT Rights’

January 12, 2012

On Dec. 6, 2011 Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton have a speech in which she presented to Obama administration Global Equality Fund, a new initiative designed to push the GLBT agenda in other countries. It is true that all human beings are entitled to human rights. All self-identified GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered) persons are human beings; therefore, all self-identified GLBT persons have those human rights with which we are endowed by our creator. The problem is that self-identified GLBT persons are demanding legal recognition of things which are not a human right, but a perversion of the concept.

In her speech Sec. Clinton referenced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document certainly provides a foundation for any discussion of human rights. All but three of its articles specifically refer to the rights which are proper to “everyone.” However there are three articles were the designation is more specific:

Article 16: Men and women … have the right to marry and found a family… The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.

Article 24 Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care

Article 25:…Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children…

In UDHR, the family is defined as the “natural and fundamental unit of society.” What is meant by “natural” in this context? Surely, it is a unit consisting of a man and woman united in marriage and their children.

The opposite of natural is artificial. Two persons of the same sex cannot naturally form a family and conceive children. If they want to conceive a child, they must resort to artificial mean and the child is biologically be the offspring of only one of them. There is no universal human “right” to that which is by its nature artificial. It is important to note that some of those conceived by artificial insemination donor are coming of age and protesting the procedures by which they were conceived. Elizabeth Marquart in her report “My Daddy’s Name is Donor,” has studied the effects on the children conceived by artificial means and found that many of them feel cheated by the process. One them asked a ”What right have you to do this?” These children now adults want to know who their fathers are. There is no gay right to create permanently and purposefully fatherless or motherless children. Yet when “GLBT rights’ laws have been passed those who refused to provide reproductive technology services or adoption to same-sex couples were accused of discrimination and driven out of business. The right of the children to know and be raised by their biological father and mother should prevail. When this is not possible because of death, divorce or desertion, it is a tragedy. There is no ‘right’ to make a tragedy.

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. There is no ‘right’ to change the definition of marriage from its natural form, to cover the relationship between two persons of the same-sex. The simple fact is that the relationship between two persons of the same-sex is not equal to that of a man and a woman. Two persons of the same sex cannot consummate the relationship, they cannot through the marital act conceive a child. Pope Benedict XVI recently supported this understanding of family, when he said “pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman. This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself.”

Parents’ right to choose the education of their children supersedes the right of the state or the right of GLBT activists to force their agenda on students required to attend publically funded educational institutions, but this is what has happened inMassachusettsandCalifornia. Children starting in the earliest years against the specific will of their parents and in contravention of the parents moral and religious convictions are being subjected to GLBT indoctrination.

Human rights are based on the truth about the human person. No one has the ‘right’ to change their sex, because you can’t have a right to something which is impossible. Although a person may through radical surgery, hormone treatments, cosmetic procedures, hair styles and clothing choices appear as other than the sex he or she was born, that person has not “changed” sex. No government, organization or individual should be forced to pretend that persons who have undergone various alterations have actually changed their sex. Governments should not be forced to change identification documents. Where this pretend ‘right’ to change sex’ has been established in a jurisdiction, deeply troubled children with gender identity disorder, rather than being given the counseling they need, are encouraged to begin the process of transition before entering puberty – a process that if continued involves a life-time of hormone treatments, irreversible physical changes, a loss of the ability to have children, mutilating surgeries, and hiding the reality of their true sexual identity. Their schools and classmates are forced to go along with the charade.

Those pushing “GLBT rights” talk about equality, but laws which restrict marriage to male/female couples treat everyone equally. Each person has the right to marry a person of the other sex. A man who has been surgically altered and given hormones, may want to believe he is a woman, but he is not equal to a natural woman. He cannot conceive and bear a child, he has never experienced a monthly cycle. It is interesting to note it is not just conservatives who don’t believe in sex changes. Radical feminists, like Janice Raymond, author of The Transsexual Empire, are also offended by men who want to pass as women.

Anne Lawrence, a man who underwent surgical transformation, admits that the process doesn’t always have the desired results. According to him, “…transsexuals may also find it harder to fully identify with women after transition than before, because the difference they inevitably observe between themselves and natal women become harder to rationalize after transition. Before transition, these differences can be attributed to the necessity of temporarily maintaining a socially acceptable masculine persona: after transition, when this excuse evaporates… transsexuals often seem to expect that, with enough effort, they will be able to pass undetected as natal women after transition; but because their appearance and behavior are rarely naturally feminine, this expectation usually proves unrealistic. [1]

Those pushing “GLBT rights” imply that their cause is the same as the struggle of women and blacks, but women and racial minorities were lobbying for recognition of their inalienable human rights, they were not trying to create new artificia rights. Self-identified GLBT persons have the same rights as other human persons, nothing more.

Those pushing for artificial, invented ‘gay rights’  accuse their opposition of being ‘homophobic’, ‘transphobic” “bigots’ engaging in ‘discrimination’, motivated by fear and ‘hatred’, whose opinions should be treated as the equivalent of racism. But this is an unjustified slander, those who oppose artificial “GLBT rights’ care about each person. They are defending the truth about the human person and real human rights. It is the freedom of those defending that truth which is really under attack.

Self-identified GLBT persons feel oppressed because the truth about who they really are is continually rising up within them and challenging the ideology they have bought into. Even if they were given everything they are demanded, it would do not good. Only the truth can set people free.


[1] Anne Lawrence (2008) “Shame and Narcissistic Rage in Autogynephilic Transsexualism,”  Archives of Sexual Behavior,  37: 457-461

Advertisements
2 Comments leave one →
  1. January 15, 2012 4:30 pm

    Dale,

    Thanks for your diligent work and vision. I regard you as a valuable resource!

  2. January 18, 2012 7:15 am

    Everything you said resonates with me. I feel strongly that many people confuse ‘respect’ with ‘acceptance.’ Obviously you can respect someone and not necessarily agree with them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: