Gay activists intent on redefining marriage and thereby marginalizing and stigmatizing Christian viewpoints on family, marriage and sexuality are utilizing some very contradictory arguments these days. Consider these two examples I came across recently which illustrate the point well.
Example 1: John Shore, author of “UNFAIR: Why the ‘Christian’ View of Gays Doesn’t Work” embeds a video of an emotionally distressed young man who has cut himself, been bullied, and even considered suicide at times. Shore proceeds to write this, addressing Christians:
Tell me that your belief system didn’t help put the hot tears on this kid’s cheeks. Tell me that the bullies who torment this kid aren’t in any way encouraged or empowered by your tacit approval of their actions. Tell me that the shame this kid feels about himself has nothing to do with the shame that you believe all gay people should feel for themselves.
… Tell me, please, how none of this kid’s anguish has anything to do with you.
… need I even respond to this libel? And yet, there are so many more examples like this of gay activists deciding they understand what Christians think (when they don’t) and attacking Christians for something Christians don’t believe. Notice how all Christians are to blame (supposedly) for the actions of bullies and the sadness in this young man’s life. There is a growing effort by gay activists to claim that the blood of teen suicides is on the heads of Christians who oppose redefining marriage.
Example 2 — Barry Deutcsh of FamilyScholars decides to unilaterally establish the parameters for how sexuality, marriage and gay-issues ought to be discussed:
There are some arguments no reasonable person makes anymore. A person arguing that consensual gay sex is intrinsically immoral and perverse has disqualified themselves from reasonable debate. In mainstream society this is a settled question, and there’s no longer any need for any LGB person or ally to answer such arguments anymore (except perhaps with a raised finger).
… well, isn’t that novel? Any articulation of the Old Testament, New Testament and Christian tradition about the purpose of human sexuality is simply off the table! Christians, says this author, are simply not allowed to use arguments or moral principles from their own tradition. This same author has the audacity to describe his pre-conditions as a reasonable litmus test for having a “civil discussion” on redefining marriage.
I can’t think of anything more ironic than those who claim to have established the civil method of debating marriage (example 2) simultaneously blaming their Christian interlocutors for the bullying of children (example 1). Christians are told to abandon their tradition (in the name of “civility”) and accept these sorts of libels constantly spread about them — simultaneously!
A final point: there is remarkably little self-monitoring in the gay rights movement, even as gay activists continually attempt to smear Christians with a broad brush: if one crazy street preacher claims all people who experience same-sex attraction are cursed by God, for instance, all Christians share that belief, they claim. This type of guilt by association attack comes up time and time again. And yet, gay activists almost never condemn the tactics their fellow gay activists employ to attack and marginalize Christians.
If gay activists actually want to have a civil debate on marriage, they can begin by ceasing to claim that every hurt visited on young people is the responsibility of Christians, and acknowledging our right to use our own tradition and moral principles as a guide.
I’m not asking them for permission, I’m asking us to call them out when they violate any of these simple, objective principles for debating in good faith. A mark of hypocrites is that they always are quick to point out perceived hypocrisy. Maybe that’s why the charge of hypocrisy is the most common attack gay activists attempt to level at their Christian opponents.