“Gay Rights” is an Oxymoron

Folks, a pretty busy weekend for “gay rights” activists. Currently, the so-called “National Equality Rally” is under way in Washington, D.C.; yesterday, President Obama, fresh from his Nobel Peace Prize win, addressed a meeting of the Human Rights Campaign, promising, among other things, the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that forces active homosexual persons to keep their sexual preference inclination a private matter while serving in the military. Reversing the ban has been a favorite promise of presidents and politicians who have never served in the military and are clueless as to its inner social workings, yet are bent to make the military a laboratory of their pet social theories. But I digress.

Every time I become aware of the “Human Rights Campaign” as a premier “gay rights” organization I have to chuckle at the ignorant boldness of the claim equating “human rights” with “gay rights.” Let me tell you why briefly.

The term “human rights” rests over two separate, yet rich philosophical concepts: that there is such a thing as “human” or “human nature” and that this human nature is intrinsically endowed with an automatic respect and dignity.

But if we speak of “human nature” then we must speak of its ends and means and within this discussion the question of homosex as a rightful mean to actualize human nature must be asked. Uh oh. That’s verboten territory. Don’t go there. It’s better to speak of “human nature” as an emotional wedge argument and leave it there, without probing its manifold meanings.

What is the end of man, then?

In common with all created nature (substance, or essence, considered as the principle of activity or passivity), that of man tends towards its natural end. The proof of this lies in the inductively ascertained principle of finality. The natural end of man may be considered from two points of view. Primarily, it is the procuring of the glory of God, which is the end of all creation. God's intrinsic perfection is not increased by creation, but extrinsically He becomes known and praised, or glorified by the creatures He endows with intelligence. A secondary natural end of man is the attainment of his own beatitude, the complete and hierarchic perfection of his nature by the exercise of its faculties in the order which reason prescribes to the will, and this by the observance of the moral law. Since complete beatitude is not to be attained in this life (considered in its merely natural aspect, as neither yet elevated by grace, nor vitiated by sin) future existence, as proved in psychology, is postulated by ethics for its attainment. Thus the present life is to be considered as a means to a further end. Upon the relation of the rational nature of man to his last end—God—is founded the science of moral philosophy, which thus presupposes as its ground, metaphysics, cosmology, and psychology. The distinction of good and evil rests upon the consonance or discrepancy of human acts with the nature of man thus considered; and moral obligation has its root in the absolute necessity and immutability of the same relation.

Same thing about the concept of “right,” which is a notion grounded on Judaeo-Christian thought: a “right” is that which is owed to a person in virtue of rank, position, relation, and ultimately – you got it – his or her humanity. But these rights must be exercised to the glory of God and for the attainment of man’s own perfection by the exercise of his rational faculties and the observance of the moral law.

Uh oh. Another mine field for “gay rights” advocates. Better to avoid it and just scream loudly.

The link between “human nature” and “human rights” is a close one. Personal rights establish a basic respect for an individual’s freedom to pursue his or her happiness, realization and eternal destiny. But if holding on to a homosexual preference inclination can’t be grounded on human nature per sé, then the whole concept of “gay rights” is open to question, and if it is open to question, then it can be debated and if it can be debated, then legislating in its favor must not be seen as the axiomatic, indisputable result of a civil rights movement of the gay kind.

To escape the uncomfortable constraints found in the concepts of “nature” and “rights,” activists recur to the postmodern stand-by: they invariably deconstruct “nature” and “right” in ways that deny the transcendence and entelechy of man, destroying their binding value by vague appeals to complete moral autonomy, the philosophical denial of a unique human nature beyond its animality – hence the constant appeal to “gay” behaviors in the animal kingdom as exemplars of “natural homosexuality” – consequentially leading to pressure, agitation, and propaganda to force legislators to adopt laws recognizing, legitimizing, and protecting their orientation. And this is what we have seen this weekend in Washington. This is why the President of the United States’ kowtowing to the pressure, promises the eventual destruction of natural marriage in our country by depriving the states from having a say in defining and protecting the basic cell of society by repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. The time has come to remind Mr. Obama who he works for and to leave the military and marriage alone. Start writing letters to your representatives!

In the meantime I continue marveling, and chuckling, at the oxymoron that the term “gay rights” represents, and the logical short-circuit activists want us to engage in to see things their way and not in their utter, human reality.