Gender equality, same-sex marriage, LGBTQ+ rights and the abolitionist movement of the 18th and 19th centuries—what do they have in common? Is it a fair and reasonable comparison, or are they so dissimilar in nature so as to merit only statements of contrast? Let us ponder this question.
Perhaps an obvious starting point would be for us to acknowledge that it is strategically advantageous for promoters of this liberal, sexualising agenda to capitalise on modern western sentiments towards the past enslavement of Africans in the Caribbean and Americas as the foundation for economic prosperity for European and American slave owners, and by extension their nations. An immediate emotional bias is established in favour of the LGBTQ+ movement by equating it with the abolitionist movement. By combining the morally indefensible with the morally repugnant the LGBTQ+ strategists have purchased emotional support from a huge number of persons, most of whom have neither the time nor inclination to do any hard thinking or research about this co-mingling of ideologies and ethics. As someone has noted that ideas have consequences and that bad ideas have bad consequences, we can clearly at this stage of an unprecedented moral and social experiment point to one bad consequence. That consequence is that the simple historical plea of black-skinned people to be regarded as fully human and worthy of equal treatment as those of “white” complexion has now been disparaged by virtue of its comparison with modern sexual rights advocacy.
Now insult is being added to injury when even those in the seats of jurisprudence are heard comparing the pleas of the gay rights advocates with the horrible cries of our enslaved ancestors. We are at times nonplussed by the ease with which the modern LGBTQ+ ideologues are able to have their ideas gain ascendency among supposedly educated persons, especially those in critical positions of influence in governments. Do they really believe that the plight of the African slave and the plea of those with same-sex attraction or “gender” dysphoria are equal on any grounds? Human behaviour, as all levels of psychotherapy will tell you, is based on three things: nature, nurture and opportunity. For the enslaved African, the one thing that was immutable was his nature—his race. No quantity of nurture or choices could change that fact. And that was the primary fact on which he was regarded as sub-human and therefore could be treated as mere chattel. By contrast, moral actions, sexual or otherwise, are always matters of choice, despite whatever inducements or inclinations one may have because of nature or nurture. My sincere plea is this: Please do not insult the descendants of slaves by comparing the plight of their fore-parents to the desires or dysphorias (however genuine they may be) of today’s radical sexual rights advocates!
(Pastor Alson Ebanks)