Pope To LGBT People - You Don't Deserve Human Rights

Once again, we find ourselves treated to the Vatican's enlightened pronouncements on the human condition. In the presentations of a Vatican delegation to the United Nations, we learn that the Vatican believes that:

In particular, "sexual orientation is not comparable to race or ethnic origin," as the ILGA contends, Msgr. Dimaculangan emphasized. "In spite of its assertions about human rights, this NGO's particular interests fall beyond the scope of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international juridical instruments."

Well, let's just go take a look at The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights for a moment:

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Please note in Article 2, it reads "Everyone is entitled ... without distinction of ... or other status". To me that is clearly quite inclusive of the rights of GLBT individuals. It doesn't say "Everyone ... with the exception of ..."

Then, we move along to Article 7, which reads:

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Once again, I don't see anything that says "except for group x".

So, returning to the battiness of the Vatican's medieval reasoning, we find the following argument:

Msgr. Dimaculangan added in his letter that the ILGA is seeking not equal rights but special rights: "In other words, what ILGA and its proponents are asking is not for equal rights but special rights; special rights that allow others a leeway for a discreet suppression of moral distinctions in choices and behavior that are of vital concern to the international community and the international order."

Eh? Really - what "special rights" would these be? Recognition as people? Abolition of discrimination?

Oh wait...there's the key phrase "moral distinctions in choices and behaviour". Well, let's just hang on a second here, shall we?

Returning to the UN Declaration, we find the following:

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Okay, fair enough, let's take a look at the Vatican's position that sexual orientation (when it's anything other than missionary straight) is clearly that it's "a matter of immoral choice". Article 18 specifically extends protections to people of faith. If I'm going to accept the argument that sexuality is a matter of choice (I don't - for details, start reading here), it therefore becomes a matter of conscience, opinion and expression, which is clearly protected by Article 19.

Using the Vatican's own reasoning that homosexuals are arbitrarily harmful:

the Vatican envoy explained to the UN that "Placing the homosexual lifestyle on the level of marriage will have 'a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy'."

It's not a huge leap to argue that the religious protections that are extended to religion should not be extended based on a long history of religiously inspired violence and harm done to peoples around the world. Priests that molest young children, holy wars, the massive economic frauds which preachers like Jim Bakker have committed have been nothing if not damaging to the moral and social foundation of those affected - and goodness knows how those acts impacted the ever so impressionable children. Unlike sexuality, it's pretty easy to argue that religion clearly is a matter of choice.

Religions don't have a monopoly on "just, moral behaviour" any more than I or any other human being do.

Further, the Vatican argues:

"Tolerance without standards seeks to create a level playing field offering loopholes for suppressing moral distinctions in choices and behavior which would be tantamount to accepting fake expressions of 'anarchic freedom'," he added.

Of course, the Vatican's position is entirely based upon the notion that sexuality is a matter of conscious choice, and therefore subject to their arbitrary rules of morality. I suspect that the reality of human behaviour is much more subtle and fluid than the polar, rigid view that the Vatican espouses.

If we wish to "protect the family", then perhaps the best thing we can do is quit finding artificial reasons to discriminate against people because of their romantic inclinations. The great fuss over sexuality we make is probably far more damaging to children and families than if we simply allowed people to live their lives peacefully.