HOW TO RESPOND TO THE LGBT MOVEMENT BY PETER SPRIGG HOW TO RESPOND TO THE LGBT MOVEMENT By Peter Sprigg In recent decades, there has been an assault on separately. Here, FRC will recount some of the the sexes. That is, there has been an attack on major claims asserted by these two movements, the previously undisputed reality that human be- and explain based on the science and evidence ings are created either male or female; that there why those claims are inaccurate. are significant differences between the sexes; and that those differences result in at least some In recent years, activists pushing for a “LGBT differences in the roles played by men and wom- rights” political agenda— en in society. such as the redefinition of civil marriage to include The first wave of this attack came from the mod- same-sex couples and the ern feminist movement, challenging traditional expansion of non-discrim- social roles of men and women. The second wave ination laws to include came from the homosexual movement, chal- sexual orientation and gen- lenging the principle that men and women are der identity as protected created to be sexually complementary to one categories—have become another. The third wave of this assault on the increasingly virulent in sexes has come from the transgender movement, their attacks upon social conservatives who resist which has attacked a basic reality—that all peo- that agenda. Examples of these attacks include a ple have a biological sex, identifiable at birth and Colorado public official comparing the exercise of immutable through life, which makes them ei- religious conscience by a baker of wedding cakes ther male or female. to slavery and the Holocaust,1 and the Southern Poverty Law Center’s continual expansion of the There are certainly overlaps between the homo- list of mainstream pro-family groups that it labels sexual and transgender movements—both assert as “Anti-LGBT Hate Groups”2 —even after the a radical personal autonomy even in defiance of list was used to target Family Research Council the natural characteristics and complementarity for an act of terrorism in 2012.3 of the two sexes. As a result, the two movements have also been allied politically more often than Such attacks reveal a fundamental misunder- not. For that reason, Family Research Council standing (if not deliberate misrepresentation) here offers a response to both. of the beliefs, arguments, and motives of social conservatives. However, there are also sufficient conceptual dif- ferences between the issues of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” for them to be addressed 1 A WORD ON SEXUAL IDENTITY AND LANGUAGE First, it is important to clarify FRC’s position and that of many social conservatives on the nature of human sexuality. We believe that every person, no matter who they are sexually attracted to, is identity as gay, lesbian, etc. is who they are. As we created in the image and likeness of God. There- will explore, this idea is empirically false. fore, all people are equal in dignity and value and must be treated with respect. We instead say “people who engage in homo- sexual conduct” or “people who identify as We believe that sexual attractions or other sub- homosexual.” (A comment on language choices jective psychological feelings do not define a regarding gender identity issues can be found un- person. Rather, every person is defined by their der the section “Responding to the Transgender immutable, in-born biological sex, which is pres- Movement” on page 13.) ent and identifiable in the DNA of every cell in the human body. While it is certainly true It should also be noted that in the context of the that some people identify very strongly as “gay,” political debates over LGBT issues, social con- “lesbian,” “bisexual,” “transgender,” or another servatives do not consider people who identify as identity and act according to this identity, this lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender to be their behavior does not define them, just as a so-called adversaries. We recognize that most people who “straight” person is not defined by their “straight- identify as LGBT are content to keep their sex ness.” Rather, the divinely intended purpose lives private rather than demand official gov- of human sexuality is inherently present in the ernment affirmation of their sexual identity or complementarity of the male and female sex, as conduct. This is why we will sometimes use the created by God and described in the first chapter terms “homosexual/transgender/LGBT activ- of the Book of Genesis. ists” to describe those people whose political and social agenda—the forced public affirmation and Therefore, when discussing homosexuality, we celebration of LGBT identity and conduct—we avoid using the terms “gay,” “lesbian,” or “bisex- oppose in the public square. ual” as solo nouns because this tends to imply that some people’s intrinsic, inborn, immutable 2 RESPONDING TO THE However, this conclusion HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT about critics of homosexuality cannot be valid unless the pre- The widespread misunderstanding of the conser- suppositions of the gay identity vative position on homosexuality arises from the paradigm are empirically true; existence of two completely different paradigms, and it is not logical unless so- or fundamental ways of understanding the nature cial conservatives are operating of human sexuality. from the same paradigm. LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) In reality, the empirical case for the gay identity activist groups, and a growing portion of ma- paradigm is extremely weak and is, in any case, jor social institutions such as academia and the subject to legitimate debate. Furthermore, what news media, have come to adopt a view of sexual is beyond dispute is that social conservatives do orientation that we might call the “gay identity” not view homosexuality and transgenderism from paradigm. The foundations of this paradigm are the perspective of the gay identity paradigm. these beliefs: Therefore, it is not only unfair and misguided, but it is simply illogical to impugn the motives of 1. Sexual orientation is an innate personal social conservatives based on that paradigm. characteristic, like race. CLAIM #1 2. People are born either gay, lesbian, bisexual, or straight. “Sexual orientation is an innate personal characteristic, like race.” 3. Homosexual people can never become heterosexual. To deconstruct the gay identity paradigm, and understand the alternative view which drives 4. Being homosexual is essentially no social conservatives, it is necessary to examine different from being straight, except the actual nature of sexual orientation. Too for the gender to which one is sexually often, it is assumed that sexual orientation is a attracted. unitary phenomenon whose meaning is clear. This is not the case. 5. There is no harm in being homosexual. Based on these beliefs (or, in many cases, unspoken presuppositions), homosexual activist “SEXUAL ORIENTATION” IS AN groups declare, and some others have come UMBRELLA TERM FOR THREE to accept, that for someone to believe that QUITE DIFFERENT THINGS: SEXUAL heterosexuality is preferable to homosexuality is ATTRACTION, SEXUAL CONDUCT, AND equivalent to believing that one race is superior SEXUAL IDENTITY. to another, and therefore represents a form of bigotry and even “hate” toward individuals who identify as homosexual. 3 As all serious researchers CLAIM #2 in human sexuality under- “Social conservatives ‘hate’ gay people stand, “sexual orientation” is for ‘who they are.’” an umbrella term for three quite different things. The The gay identity paradigm is simplistic, since it first of these is one’s sexual is based on the assumption (which the research attractions—is a person sexu- clearly shows to be false) that sexual orienta- ally attracted to people of the tion is a unitary characteristic. Under this view, opposite sex, the same sex, or people are either gay or not gay, so to criticize both? The second element of homosexuality is to denigrate some people for sexual orientation is sexual “who they are.” conduct—what sex acts does an individual choose to engage in, and with whom? The third element of sexual orientation is sexual self-identification— “SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES DO NOT BELIEVE does an individual think of himself or herself, OR ARGUE THAT ‘GAY PEOPLE ARE INFERIOR,’ and/or publicly identify himself or herself to oth- AS HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS CHARGE. WHAT WE BELIEVE AND ARGUE IS THAT ers, as “gay,” “lesbian,” “straight,” “bisexual,” or HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT IS HARMFUL.” something else? 4 The gay identity paradigm assumes that these aspects of sexual orientation will always be con- Social conservatives approach the topic of sistent with one another—that is, for example, homosexuality using a completely different para- that a person with same-sex attractions will also digm—one that is more sophisticated, and more engage exclusively in homosexual conduct and consistent with the research on human sexuali- publicly self-identify as gay or lesbian. ty and sexual orientation, than the gay identity paradigm. This paradigm is based on the reality However, scientific research into human sexu- that same-sex attractions, homosexual conduct, ality has clearly shown that this is not always the and self-identification as gay are three separate case. Some people experience same-sex attrac- (although related) matters which must be ad- tions, but do not choose to engage in homosexual dressed separately. conduct (or choose to engage in heterosexual con- duct instead). Some people experience same-sex For social conservatives, particularly when it attractions and engage in homosexual conduct, comes to public policy debates related to ho- but do not self-identify as gay or lesbian. It has mosexuality, homosexual conduct is by far the been observed that in unique situations (such as most important of the three elements of sexual prisons), people who neither experience same- orientation.