Sexual Identity & Equality

The Executive Editor of HuffPost’s Gay Voices, Noah Michelson, published an article Feb. 14, 2014 titled, “An Urgent Warning to All Parents: This Gay Man Is Targeting Your Children.”

As I have written before, I do not vilify gays, nor am I “homophobic” (believing that gay is somehow a communicable disease), and I recognize a difference between attractiveness, lust, and acting on every sexual impulse/desire. I say “loud and proud” that I do not think sexuality is a matter for humanity to define arbitrarily, either in the religious arena or in the political arena; and those arenas should remain separate (see here).

Regarding Noah Michelson’s article, first, please pay attention to the fact that HP’s executive editor wrote the article. This is not a guest posting; it is straight from the company itself. It is a loud and bold statement. Secondly, notice the title uses the “shock and grab” technique with an extra helping of tongue-in-cheek sarcasm to incite all kinds of emotional response from potential readers. It is meant as a hook.

After using that kind of rhetoric in his title, one would expect Mr. Michelson to write something like,

I (and gays) have no agenda to target children; ‘live and let live,’ we say. We’re not monsters. We think everyone should decide for himself or herself at a mature and self-actualized age, and that, parents are the guardian guides of their own children until that time. But let’s agree to have respectful freedom of speech on both sides of the issue politically.

If he had done, I would be forced to agree with him socially and politically speaking, even if I don’t agree with him morally. Yet, that is not what Huffington Post’s editor writes. Instead, he spends ink on explaining with passion and exactness how he, if not the entire Gay community, hopes to determine the moral psychology of youth… or, at least ‘liberate’ the previously established societal norms which directly affect youth development. Think of it. In the title, Noah Michelson writes the boldest kind of emotional denial one can rhetorically employ–(i.e. reductio ad absurdum). In the very next lines, he divulges his plan to do what he originally denies, and he does so by couching it in an aura of “tolerance” and “enlightenment.” This strange mix leads one to wonder if Mr. Michelson is the sort of person he claims not to be. Perhaps the title of his article is not satirically sarcastic after all.

The Crux of the LGBT & Noah Michelson’s Argument:

The crux of the Mr. Michelson’s article is typical of the LGBT in that it is mainly a defense from identity. I think the writer would agree with that observation. He seeks to de-villify those who identify themselves as gays or with a variant sexual orientation by making appeals to equality and tolerance and ‘evidence’ to the contrary (proofs that gays are the really successful and innovative ones in our society). The reader gathers all of this is supposed to console the LGBT community for its explicit desire to alter the moral perceptions of youth and society… as well as convince the non-LGBT communities that this is a perfectly acceptable aim. Comments in the response area of the post include anecdotal testimonies of how the “hidden” are the real predatory monsters, not the “out” individuals. As someone who has experienced sexual abuse and has had to work through the effects of that as well as some of the thoughts and feelings the author and commentators raise, I also strongly agree with a Kevin B. (kbishop), who states the following criticism about Mr. Michelson’s declared agenda:

… As a middle school teacher, I see how immature sexual experimentation and peer pressure is causing numerous problems in our society. Problems that have emotional, physical, financial, and life-long consequences. I’m not sure what the answer is in this regard, but treating sex like an amusement park ride is tearing our society apart.

There are many arguments which can be made in favor of letting virtue lead us instead of passion, as Kevin Bishop observes. All of them have to do with things like what it means to be human, as well as cause and effect, action and consequence, reason vs. irrationality, immaturity vs. maturity. New research on how casual sex affects young adults finds a trend of depression and suicidal thoughts–Journal of Sex Research: & . Clearly, youth are feeling the disastrous results of undefined sexuality and experimentation.

But, concerning the matter of sexual identity and equality, one asks how far will the game of “rights” (based on sexual identity/orientation) be played out? When I recently read an article by Matt Barber (@jmattbarber) on the LEFT’S NEW CRUSADE: ADULT-CHILD SEX, I asked sex professor Jeana Jorgensen (@foxyfolklorist) of Butler University if the claims were true. Dr. Jorgensen’s remarks were as follows:

I said, “That is a sad statement,” because any people pushing for adult-child sex at all, fringe or not, is quite disturbing. When a society begins entertaining these things, it is time to revisit definitions of love and humanity and truth and conscience, rationality and reason. The definition of what is moral and immoral to humanity must be reached. If this whole argument is just about self-determination of personal identity, then why “target” other people’s sense of it while they are in the earliest stages of personal development, when they are not biologically (physiologically) mature (in sex, brain and body), let alone emotionally and socially and financially established? There are priorities to all aspects of life, and yes, there must be limitations. That is why so many wish to draw the line at defining marriage as one man, one woman. It is the most self-evident, observable and reproducible means of sustaining humanity.

Sexuality is undeniably a moral matter, since some abuses of sexuality are self-evidently immoral to humanity (ex. rape, abuse, incest, pedophilia, etc.). That is, just as murder is self-evidently immoral to humanity, abuses of sexuality are also aberrations to humanity. These kinds of actions are each violations of primary and inalienable human rights… and that raises the question of human rights.

Rebutting the Argument that Sexual Identity demands Equality:

Also in a recent twitter dialogue, congressman Mike Delph (@MikeDelph) stated:

The LGBT culture attempts to claim rights as a minority against which discrimination is happening. That claim for equal rights as a minority is based on sexual identity, as if sexual identity must be equated with other essential (permanent) descriptors of human identity–race/ethnicity, gender, nationality (origin), age. The question, then, is two-fold: 1) “Is sexual identity a primary descriptor of humanity?’ and 2) “How should one define a minority?” Does the gay agenda have a legitimate Constitutional claim of discrimination and therefore a right to rights? Are gays’ U.S. Constitutional rights being violated like women’s rights or African American rights have been?

Arguments from U.S. Constitution, U.S. History and from Form:

  1. Women’s Rights are obviously about gender discrimination. The discrimination associated with women has to do with form not function. That is, if women meet discrimination it is because they have been historically categorized according to their form—their physicality. The form is naturally unchangeable, or permanent.
  2. African American Rights [and any other ethnical minority’s rights] are obviously about race/color discrimination. The discrimination associated with African Americans has to do with form not function. That is, if African Americans meet discrimination it is because they have been historically categorized according to their form—their physicality. The form is naturally unchangeable or permanent.

Gender and race are what could be called primary descriptors of a person’s identity. I name them primary descriptors because of their being apparent to the observer of the individual and inherent to the individual at birth and unchanging unless acted upon determinately (alt. ex. sex change, hormone therapy, etc.). [This speaks to the rule and not the exception of nature; ex. when one is born hermaphrodite, etc.] In fact, the matter of hermaphrodite individuals does not erase my arguments, but rather, bolsters the truth that being human is not directly tied to one’s genetalia or use thereof. One can be human without genetalia or the use thereof. A hermaphrodite is human, because human-ness is defined by something far superior to mere sexuality. Human rights exist tangent to the essences of humanity, not to the expressions of humanity. Humans have form, but form is not the entirety of what makes humans human.

Arguments from Situation:

Sexual orientation is not to be considered a primary descriptor of human identity, because:

  1. It is not something determinable by outward appearance (unless stereotypes prevail), and therefore, not readily identifiable to a government unless declared.
  2. It has to do with one’s personal application of his/her innate form or physicality—not with the form itself. [It can be and should be argued that function ought to befit form—according to the laws of nature, but that argument belongs in a debate on the morality of the subject.]
  3. It is factually provable to both develop and/or change according to the personal experience/preference of the individual (i.e. It cannot be treated as a permanent matter of identity). For every case that claims he/she was born homosexual, there presumably are also cases of homosexuals and heterosexuals whose sexual orientation changed. Where the brain is credited with sexual orientation, one may argue conditioning and/or said change as negations to the argument. Then there are the ramifications of bi-sexual orientation, which make classification of sexual orientation an effort of liquid irrationality.

Therefore, I conclude that sexual identity and orientation must not be considered a valid minority of any society or of humanity in general… and so, cannot legitimately claim governmental discrimination. Sexual identity is a matter of morality, and vice versa. The two are inseparable.

Also, I conclude that whatever one’s persuasions on sexuality are, everyone can agree with the statement that ‘some actions are self-evidently immoral to humanity (and to be restrained despite one’s desires, avoided at all costs).’ A society, as in a Constitutional Democratic Republic, determines what the society’s mores and norms will be. But, as I have demonstrated above, sexual identity does not hold a legitimate claim to the title minority; and therefore, cannot legitimately claim discrimination on any governmental level. The LGBT culture is just that–a culture, a sub-culture.

Think of it. How will we as a society define a “minority”? The definition of minority depends on definitions (essentials/primary descriptors) of humanity and implies inalienable rights are due every human. Will we define “minority” from secondary or from primary factors of identity? And, if a human has self-evident inalienable rights, then from where did humanity get them? I assert the same Source as the founders—-God, who alone is the standard for humanity, morality; and yes, that extends to sexuality.

The lines of definition must be drawn somewhere… not only for the children’s sake but for the name of humanity in general. Until then, as Noah Michelson writes of himself: “An Urgent Warning to All Parents: This Gay Man is Targeting Your Children.”




Incest Ruled Acceptable in Florida, Abortion Cited

@activechristian: Homosexual HRC Founder Arrested for Raping 15-Year-Old Boy & now his Boyfriend too!!

12/23/2014 Transgender student’s family sues Michigan school district for discrimination. via Huffington Post

Major Corporations Funding ‘Gay’ Indoctrination in Elementary Schools Across America

8 thoughts on “Sexual Identity & Equality

  1. Hi. I’d like to chime in and clarify a few of my thoughts, since you quoted me in this piece. My point was that yes, in every group you will find a few vocal extremists. In this case, unfortunately, it was a small group of gay rights activists that were saying pedophilia is not as bad as it’s made out to be (a position I totally disagree with – children cannot consent to sexual acts, period).

    However, I’m worried that my comment was taken to normalize the conflation of gay rights activists with pedophilia-sympathizers. That was not my intention. I was speaking from a scholarly perspective, from the vantage point of having observed multiple special interests groups in action, from feminists to anti-racist crusaders, and having drawn the conclusion that – regardless of the content of their message – the most extreme minority on the fringes of the group is often the most vocal, thus the most noticeable to the mainstream. To take an example from feminism (a large and diverse movement, difficult to categorize in just a few words), you’ll get extremists like Andrea Dworkin’s followers, claiming that all heterosexual sex is rape. Um, no. Most feminists – probably 97-99% of us – do not stand by that statement. And yet there are some who do. I’ve talked to many men who are offended that these feminists imply that they are rapists every time they have heterosexual sex. Again: the extreme views of a movement’s minority are usually not held by the majority, and sometimes people wanting publicity but who aren’t actually affiliated with that movement’s goals will piggy-back on a movement in order to gain attention.

    Anyway, I just wanted to put my comment in a bit more context for your readers. I am hoping to organize a reply to your claims about sexual minorities not actually being able to claim that status, but that’ll have to wait til after I teach my college classes today.

  2. Sam

    Thank you very much for clarifying your statements, Jeana.

    You originally stated, “I know very few gay rights/alternative sexuality activists promoting pedophilia.” I was communicating it is an alarming thing when even a “very few “ are pushing for adult-child sex; and, you have agreed with me on that by stating pedophilia advocacy is a “position I totally disagree with.”

    As you point out, it is necessary to note there are extremists and “fringe” to almost every group under the sun. And, I fully admit that Christianity is no exception. In fact, Lamb’s Harbinger exists to provide explanation for the beliefs of biblical Christianity against the backdrop of those who taint Christianity with ‘inside’ abuses, cover-ups, “religion” and “tradition,” or those on the ‘outside’ who try to undermine biblical Christianity’s validity as an accurate and reasonable worldview.

    On the other hand, I must challenge anyone who says that advocacy of pedophilia is not going mainstream. My examples are Richard Dawkins and world renowned “sexologist” Dr. Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins fame . These men are heterosexual, and they are by their own admissions (and on public record) found to be proponents of “light pedophilia” and the socio-political agendas of pedophiles. In the article, I never claimed there can’t be heterosexuals in the pedophile category. So, I am not projecting pedophlia as gay exlusive. I am however exposing its existence in mainstream minds, which is undeniable. And MORE than anything, I am advocating child protection by advocating parental-child rights against variant sexual agendas bombarding children.

    If Noah Michelson claims not to sexually target children in one sentence and then explains exactly what he wants children to learn from him about sexuality in the rest of his article, then that exposes eiher his irrationality or the slyness of his agenda. Some will say, “But the author’s point was to de-villify gays as being monsters who want to sexually attack children.” I respond with, “if one can not sexually target children by having an agenda to shape children’s concepts of sexuality, that defies logic.” An agenda to shape the minds of MINORS regarding sexual variations with almost no boundaries–almost nothing immoral–to humanity is an agenda to sexually target minors. As Matt Barber writes, “self-described “progressive” friends at the ACLU, MSNBC and elsewhere have been ramping-up efforts to downsize from “consenting adults” to merely “consenting.” And, as the middle school teacher I quoted points out, “treating sex like an amusement park ride is tearing our society apart.” My argument was to destruct Noah Michelson’s arguments. He claims not to have an agenda but then declares it. Simple.

    These things being said, I would like to have any future reader note the context in which I couched your comments and the flow of my argument. I await your reply, because where others fail, you have grasped that I am making claims about whether sexual identity deserves minority status and the rights that pertain to it. I was not writing in order to equate the gay movement with pedophilia, though there is a “fringe group” (as you call them) which can be so categorized. Rather, I was writing on “Sexual Identity & Equality,” and the immediate context in which I framed your quote was to establish that the game of “rights claiming” cannot be stopped once other lines of definition have been erased. “How far will the game of “rights” (based on sexual identity/orientation) be played out?” I wrote. Then, I exposed the existence of pedophilia advocacy, however meager. That such ideas are even being entertained means our culture needs to revisit definitions of humanity (and what is moral to it), truth, virtue, love, conscience, etc.

    When I refer to rights, I certainly hold and affirm protection of all, without exception… and that includes those who are minors. No one should have to endure crimes. Again, our laws protect all from crime, and our laws protect minors specially, because they are a special minority. Being a minor is a correct use of primary descriptors for humanity, as it is used to define a minority based on age–something a person cannot keep personal and something that is amoral.

    But, are LGBT not covered under normal protections that other citizens enjoy? They are already protected by every law that protect non-LGBT. So, the argument that LGBT and other sexual identities deserve special “rights,” is mute when it is made from the standpoint of “protection.” And, I further argued that any claim to “equality” and special rights based on sexual identity is mute, seeing sexuality is not amoral. It is undeniably moral, seeing it is a thing which is application of form (moral function), not form itself—whereas skin color, age, gender, ethnicity are all amoral matters of form in themselves.

  3. I find this an intriguing enough topic that I’m going to write a blog post of my own exploring the issue of same-sex desire and minority status. So, I will tackle a bunch of these issues there (and hopefully soon – though it depends on my teaching/grading schedule).

    Perhaps, though, first you could clarify for me what you mean by “seeing sexuality is not amoral. It is undeniably moral, seeing it is a thing which is application of form (moral function), not form itself—whereas skin color, age, gender, ethnicity are all amoral matters of form in themselves.” What is “moral” in this context?

    I worry that I come across as jaded when I state that I don’t think a “very few” extremists advocating something non-consent based and horrible by most accounts isn’t something to be really alarmed about, but hopefully I conveyed my point: history shows that every ideologically-based group has extremists. When those extremists are merely being vocal about whatever strange and possibly harmful position they take, well, that’s just the nature of social groups, and I don’t want to waste energy getting upset over it. It’s when they take action that we should be worried.

    Honestly, I think we should be more worried about child sexual molestation coming from heterosexual folks than same-sex-desiring folks. No one needs to join a fringe group promoting its existence because it already exists, and in alarming numbers. It’s so prevalent as to be practically invisible. Take, for instance, this report on child abuse prevention, which is written with heterosexual households as the assumed norm:

    By some estimates up to 26% of American adolescents report experiencing caregiver abuse (8% of it is sexual in nature). According to a recent longitudinal study, no children in two-parent lesbian households reported abuse. Zero:

    This is why I worry that the “oh no some gay people promote pedophilia!” argument is a distraction from what’s really happening: all of the abuse that occurs in heterosexual-parent homes. I mean, we *could* keep arguing about gay marriage in our state legislatures… or we could put our time and money into preventing the abuse of truly vulnerable populations (granted, easier said that done, since this abuse has become so normalized as to practically be invisible).

  4. Sam

    Again, thank you, Jeana, for adding to the conversation! I think it is time we both sat down, face-to-face over some nice cups of coffee.

    For now, here’s the clarification of “sexuality is not amoral…” As a teenager, I would have thought this statement to be self-evident. But, seeing my teenage years are 12 years past, I suppose a lot has devolved. One can only determine the definition of what is moral, immoral, or amoral to humanity when the definition of humanity is agreed upon. It may be that you and I have differing worldviews, and therefore, different definitions of humanity and different moral constructs, which tell us something is abnormal to humanity. However, I think we all agree that things like murder and rape (and pedophilia) are immoral to humanity, because they are so outlandishly offensive to human dignity and existence, violations of inalienable human rights, exploitation of the defenseless, or grave humiliation or a degradation of human beings. Er go, we have such things called “crimes against humanity.” Now, gender is not the same as sexuality, and all crimes against humanity are based off of primary descriptors of humanity–age, race, gender, origin of birth, even religion (due to its being observably universal & innate to humanity), etc. When one commits a crime against someone’s gender or age or race, it is immoral to the dignity of humanity. When one commits a crime against both one’s age and sex (as in heterosexual or gay pedophilia) that too is immoral to humanity. If one uses his/her own sexuality to commit a crime against another due to primary descriptor (ex. age), then that one has demonstrated that sexuality is not amoral. Sexuality, as opposed to gender, is not a primary descriptor of humanity, but it can be used as a means by which others of humanity can be either dignified or degraded, glorified or humiliated, honored or violated. And, as we both agreed earlier, free will is not the only limitation to what may constitute a violation. In conclusion, sexuality is not amoral–that is, its use may be moral or immoral. Sexuality is not amoral, because it matters how we treat one another by use of it…due to definitions of humanity.

    If I may say, you seem to have gotten distracted by feeling the need to prove heterosexual abuse of children is higher than gay abuse. I made no attempt to say sexual abuse is gay exclusive. You and I agree that protection of children must happen, no matter from what sexual identity they are receiving the abuse or being targeted.

    I was, however, arguing that any agenda to mould the minds of children (minors) regarding sexuality is to target children’s sexuality…[as I think you would agree, the mind is the prominent sexual organ]… and I provided evidence (by way of Kevin Bishop, middle school teacher) that exposing children to the idea that sexuality is amoral (or, at least ambiguous) and an “amusement park ride” is leading to immature and unsafe behaviors [one could argue forms of psychosis], which are tearing our society apart. Isn’t that telling?

    Furthermore, I was arguing that sexual identity does not necessitate or deserve minority status, seeing it is a non-primary descriptor to humanity. I only brought in evidence of pedophilia advocacy’s being mainstream to illustrate that once the “rights game” is played using sexual identity as “on par” with something like age, then suddenly there is no such thing as a “minor,” and properly defining a “minority” becomes a matter of liquid subjectivity/irrationality. Don’t you see?

    1. Hm, okay. I’m not sure I agree with your discussion of how “sexuality is not amoral” but I’m still figuring out my thoughts on that. I largely agree that gender and sexuality are not equivalent, though they are often conflated in popular accounts of identity.

      You’re right, I’m a little distraught by how abuse of children is made out to be something we must protect them from… but only when there’s a convenient gay pedophile to point fingers at. It’s hard enough to get facts on child abuse that it’s probably impossible to “prove” which demographic is more responsible for it… but I’m really disturbed by how much abuse happens in heterosexual households, and yet this isn’t seen as much occasion for comment or activism by a lot of people. I guess it’s just a personal pet peeve, seeing a minority get demonized for what is actually a mainstream problem.

      Two small points of disagreement before I get on to composing my post about the minority-status issue:
      1) I agree that targeting children’s sexuality is harmful… but I think children need to understand what sex and sexuality are in order to be protected from abuse, and in order to understand how their bodies will change/are changing. One teacher says not to expose kids to sex, and yet others argue that teaching kids about sex early is essential to their understanding about healthy sexuality. I’m an advocate for universal, comprehensive, fact-based sex education, while also keeping it age-appropriate (so maybe 5th-graders aren’t getting the same curriculum as 8th-graders, but they are learning about things like consent, and some very basics ideas about how their bodies will start to change soon). Again, this might be a bigger topic than you intended to get into in this post, but I would hope we can agree that targeting children’s sexuality (i.e. sexually abusing children by physically assaulting them, or showing them age-inappropriate materials like visual pornography) IS different than offering them fact-based knowledge about what biological reproduction is, how their bodies will become able to do it, and how it’s not appropriate for anyone to touch them in those areas.

      2) I think any group that tries to extend its rights by infringing on the rights of minors is going about it wrong (we probably agree on this one). However, you seem to be implying that making sexuality a minority-rights-granting-identity-status somehow erases the other minority-rights-granting-identity-statuses that already exist. I don’t think a minority claiming its rights magically makes the rights of other protected minorities exist, unless somehow, the already-protected minority has been claiming rights that are innately harmful to others. I really don’t see that happening here. I mean, to take a really out-there example, a white supremacy fascist group could claim that its beliefs innately give it the right to wipe colored people from the earth, and in theory we couldn’t stop them from expressing their belief about this… but they would be in the wrong trying to enact those rights because they infringe on the rights of another group in existence (where people of color constitute a minority group, some might argue – but these are basic human rights, like the right to life). Sorry, my example is kinda random, but it’s the best I could come up with of a group that seeks to assert its rights by erasing the rights of others. I just don’t see that being the case with sexuality-based-identity groups trying to claim minority status.

      1. Sam

        First, Jeana… How about those coffees? 🙂

        I think we should partner together to work against child abuse, from both heterosexuals and all sexual identities. I completely concur with you.

        But, to address your concerns:

        1. I reiterate–I have never made child abuse gay exclusive. I was merely responding to a post made by a gay advocate. If members of the LGBT community do not wish for measured responses to their writings as gay advocates, I can only suggest that they not write. But, if they are in the “free press” market, then they must subject themselves to the same scrutiny that all of us receive. I am not arguing anything that Noah Michelson did not bring up first, and of course my response will pertain to its initiating audience.

        2. I only argued sexual identity does not deserve claim to minority status.

        3. I argued #2 (in this list) based on several factors

        a. form vs.function (a.k.a. primary vs. secondary descriptors of humanity)

        b. evidence that once the “rights” game is played out based on sexual identity, there are no limits at all logically [some of those limits are being tested–i.e. pedophilia]

        c. evidence that our current education system (as per Kevin Bishop) is only serving to tear our society apart — targeting children’s sexuality is wrong

        d. the proposition that sexuality is not amoral

        Concerning your last run of concerns:

        1) How much does a child really need to know, except “These are your special parts…. This is a bad touch, etc. Let mommy or daddy or teacher or social worker know if anyone makes a bad touch.” That is enough protection, don’t you think? Secondly, when you mention a teen’s understanding their changing body, then we’re talking about age-appropriate instruction… and how much is needed, except, “these are hormones… your body will do this, and this and this. There is male anatomy and female anatomy. Only when the male anatomy is put together with the female anatomy can a baby be made. That is a fact. You will find yourself becoming more sexually aware, due to the hormones and changes happening in your body. But, just because your body is developing, it doesn’t mean you are mature psychologically, relationally, spiritually, emotionally, socially, economically, etc. This is an indicator you need to start maturing in these other areas. Sexuality is not amoral–it matters how we treat one another, even sexually–so wisdom and virtue and just plain practicality says WAIT… and here are the statistics which prove waiting is best (STDs, socio-economic stats, etc). I mean, how hard is that? No need to go into sexual identities… and, “am i really a girl” crap. Give the basics, then let them deal with all the other age-appropriate stuff when they are age-appropriate for it. Otherwise, you only get really confused minds inside of hormone driven bodies that are not psychologically, relationally, spiritually, emotionally, socially, economically mature enough to handle it… it becomes an immature free-for-all, even for middle schoolers, just like Kevin Bishop indicated.

        2) Yes, I agree that “rights” which result in the infringement of others’ inalienable rights are not really at all. Please note the way I stated that. The statement does not assert–as you surmise–that “making sexuality a minority-rights-granting-identity-status somehow erases the other minority-rights-granting-identity-statuses that already exist.” I am only saying that some rights are inalienable, and any claim to rights which threatens the inalienable rights is no valid claim to rights. A good test of something that is an inalienable human right is: “can this be kept private… or, is it naturally occurring and unchanging apart from deliberate choice?” Can race be kept private, can it be changed? No. Can gender be kept private, can it be changed without deliberate action? No. Can age be kept private, changed? No…etc. Any right which stems from these primary descriptors of humanity are to be considered inalienable; and inalienable rights supersede all other claims to rights. If a claim to rights infringes on age, gender, ethnicity, etc., then that claim is invalid… and certainly not deserving of minority status.

        My point is: if LGBT has its way with gaining minority rights (normalization, even marital status), then there is no logical way to argue against pedophilia advocacy; and if pedophilia is someday seen as acceptable, then inalienable rights of protection which belong to minors will be infringed upon.

        So, I ask you. Where should the line of definition be drawn? (See also: as well as …and

  5. Pingback: Does Being Gay Make You A Minority? Part 1 | My Sex Professor

  6. Sam

    IN response to the article written at “My Sex Professor,” I add the following:

    Hello Jeana! Thank you for your continuance of this worthy discussion. Below, I add my responses to the list you provided.

    First, please note you quoted Sociologist Joe Feagin in Racial and Ethnic Relations (1984). While I commend you for citing a resource I would find appealing, it is rather self-defeating to argue sexual sociology from a racial and ethnic sociology text. By doing so you are conceding that the only arguments for minority can be made from race and ethnicity. I have demonstrated this below:

    (1) suffering discrimination and subordination — historically speaking, the groups you mention (Jews, Roma) received discrimination and subordination due to ethnicity. So, I categorize this under primary descriptor: “ethnicity” as does the author.

    (2) physical and/or cultural traits that set them apart, and which are disapproved by the dominant group, — “physical and/or cultural traits” sounds a lot like my categorization “ethnicity/race, or nationality” or even “gender”

    (3) a shared sense of collective identity and common burdens, — I am surprised at Joe Faegin, because this is the definition of a community. Collective identity may arise from shared experiences (war, catastrophe)… Also, common burdens may be something as uncontrollable as disease, weather, food availability. Again, while these things make for community, the only way they could determine minority is if the collective identity or common burdens were ultimately attributed to race or ethnicity, which is the author’s aim as seen in the title of the work.

    (4) socially shared rules about who belongs and who does not determine minority status, and — by this, Joe Feagin refers to societal mores of inclusion or exclusion, and as any sociologist will tell (even perhaps the one cited, if one gives context), these rules are usually based on genetics or origin or beliefs. So, again, I believe my primary descriptors hold (i.e. ethnicity/race, nationality [origin]).

    (5) tendency to marry within the group. — once again, history will evidence that if it is not ethnicity and/or nationality which determines this, then it is religion. My primary descriptors hold.

    Unless LGBT is willing to proclaim itself a religion, then it must realize the above list only serves to bolster what arguments I have made in previous articles/comments.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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