The liberal left, homophobia, and the moral high ground

by Matt Slick
11/3/2018

 

The liberal left is constantly promoting homosexuality, defending it, and denouncing anyone who disagrees with them. They label those who don't agree as homophobic, bigots, and intolerant. They do this to intimidate, denegrate, and silence people who don't agree with them.  The left applies pressure to silence others by calling for boycotts, filing lawsuits, and using the media to gain sympathy for being "persecuted." They are relentless in their shaming of others, portraying their views and behavior in the most positive light, and demanding their rights. However, they never defend the rights of people to disagree. They condemn, mock, and attack those who don't follow their politically correct position with varying degrees of efficiency and intensity. To this end, the homosexual community has become very politically active, socially vocal, and has made huge inroads in presenting the homosexual lifestyle as good and normal on TV, in movies, radio, and schools. With this momentum, I can't help but wonder how long it will be before their influence is so great, that the Bible itself is attacked as homophobic material that must be banned and Christians are penalized for their disagreement with homosexuality.

As a matter of fact, Christians are already being penalized for their views.  For documentation on this please see Examples of persecution of people who do not agree with homosexuality.

As I observe their encroaching presence in the public eye and listen to them justify their 'rights' with an appeal to fundamental human rights and moral dignity, I can't help but ask from where did they get their morals upon which they try and justify their position? I can see only a few possible answers to this question which I will address below. But first, I need to make a point.

 

If there is no moral standard, there is no right and wrong

If there is no absolute moral standard, there can be no absolute right and wrong. There can only be opinions. But opinions don't make moral truths with which anyone could justify imposing laws, restrictions, and standards upon others. The left with its promotion of the LGBTQ movement, assumes its moral superiority and then makes demands, pushes for the passage of new laws, enacts social pressure, advocates boycotts, files lawsuits intimidates, pronounces moral condemnation, and encourages indoctrination of people through the media and schools.

But their hypocrisy is blatant. On one hand, the left opposes, for example, the Christians who disapprove of homosexuality and labels them as intolerant, bigots. The left says Christians can have their beliefs but they better not act on those beliefs and "offend" the homosexual community. But then, they turn around and say they have the right to approve of homosexuality and disapprove of the Christian's perspective and act on those beliefs by oppressing Christians with various forms of persecution of which I've already mentioned. (See article linked above.) Such hypocrisy is rampant among the homosexual community. And, such hypocrisy is condemned by Jesus.

  • Matthew 7:5, "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."
  • Matthew 23:29, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,"

 

Responding to the left's justification of a moral high ground

For the sake of brevity and efficiency, I will list out some of the reasons I have heard that the left uses to justify it's moral high ground in the area of homosexuality. Then, I will respond to each.

 

It's common sense that homosexuality is morally ok

What is common sense to one person may not be common sense to another. The appeal to common sense is nothing more than an appeal to subjectivity. But subjectivity does not produce moral absolutes that apply to everyone. Furthermore, to say that it is common sense that homosexuality is morally okay is to beg the question. In other words, it is to assume the position is true without justifying it. But, when Christians assume their position is true, the left attacks them for it with various forms of condemnation. Again, their hypocrisy is evident.

 

Homosexuality is a normal practice

There are two problems with this position. First, it assumes that if something is practiced enough and becomes a normal behavior, then it is morally okay. But this is not the case. Consider slavery in the first couple hundred years of America. It was a normal practice in the South to own slaves. But such normal practice was not morally correct.

Second, an appeal to what is normal is an appeal to a standard; that is, normality becomes the moral standard. Let's define what it means to be normal.

  • Normal: "conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural."1
  • Normal: "conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern. occurring naturally." 2
  • Normal: "Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected...The usual, typical, or expected state or condition."3

As we see from the dictionaries, what is normal is that which conforms to a standard or a regular pattern. But this backfires for the homosexual movement because what is normal (practiced by the great majority of people) in any society is heterosexuality. It is, therefore, the standard of what is normal. It is the regular pattern. Therefore, homosexuality would not be normal. It would be abnormal. So, an appeal to "normal practice" does not work.

 

Homosexuality is practiced in the animal kingdom. Therefore, it is normal.

Appealing to the animal kingdom for moral direction is a ridiculous. In the animal kingdom, we see hunters eating their prey alive. We even see some creatures that eat their own young. Animals steal food from each other, rape, are parasitic, and are often very self-serving. Are we to lower ourselves to their level and seek a moral standard among animals as a justification for homosexual behavior? To do so is ridiculous. In addition, there is the further problem of deciding which behavior from animals people ought to adopt or use as examples of normality and which we do not. By differentiating between different kinds of animal behavior, people are imposing a moral value upon the animals. But then again, where the people get their moral standard with which they judge which animalistic behaviors to emulate or ignore?

 

They have the right to be homosexual without being oppressed and discriminated against

Whether or not someone has the right to be homosexual is a discussion worth having. You see, rights deal with morality and to assume homosexuality is morally correct is to commit the fallacy of begging the question. For homosexuals to justify that they have the moral right to their position, they need to supply an objective moral standard upon which to make such a judgment. But, they don't have an objective moral standard. However, the Christian does have an objective moral standard. We appeal to the word of God which clearly condemns it (Romans 1:18-31).

 

Marry whomever you wish to is a basic human right

Who said that marrying whoever you wish is a basic human right? Just claiming it doesn't make it so. Presently I am married to my wife of 32 years. If I am attracted to another woman and want to marry her also, according to the law of the land, I don't have the right to commit bigamy. I can't just marry anyone I want to. Furthermore, as a Christian, I am committed to my wife and don't have the right to arbitrarily divorce her and marry someone else.

I have an objective standard: the word of God. It does not rest in me or my subjective opinions. It is outside of me. It is derived from a collection of 66 different books written over 1600 years, on three different continents by 40 different people. It's coherence, prophecy, wisdom, and accounts of the person and work of Christ who died on the cross and physically rose from dead per the eyewitness accounts written therein (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), provide the evidential and intellectual basis for recognizing its authority and validity. Therefore, I have an objective moral standard. It is not subjective. And because it objective, I don't have the right to simply marry anybody I feel like. I have commitments, responsibilities, and obligations with which I have bound myself in the marriage covenant authored by God and revealed in His word.

 

The religious right is bigoted and unfair against the homosexual community

Saying that the religious right is bigoted and unfair to the homosexual community doesn't make it so. This accusation is repeatedly stated and after a while, people begin to believe it. But, what does the word bigot mean?

  1. "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."4
  2. "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."5
  3. "A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions."6

So, who are those who are utterly intolerant of someone's difference of opinion on homosexuality? It's the homosexual community. After all, it shows little, if any, tolerance for people who oppose their behavior. It is consistently loud in condemning opposing positions. Their intolerance and bigotry are evident. Yet, they are the ones who accuse the Christians of being bigots. Again, the hypocrisy is clearly evident.

Now, to be fair, has there been unfair treatment of homosexuals by Christians? Of course, there have been. People of all kinds of religious beliefs often don't act in a manner consistent with those beliefs. And, in case homosexuals want to say that the Bible tells Christians to kill homosexuals, they must understand that the Old Testament covenantal system was abrogated by the New Testament (Hebrews 8:13; 9:15-16). The New Testament covenant in which Christianity is derived, does not advocate physical harm to homosexuals. If anything, it teaches Christians to be loving and respectful. Nevertheless, it also says we are not to approve of ungodly behavior. Therefore, Christians cannot rightfully support homosexuality. It is their right to disapprove of it without being condemned and acted against, something the homosexual community repeatedly does in its hypocrisy.

Conclusion

The liberal left assumes its moral superiority but has no way to justify it. In its self-righteousness, it condemns others and judges their morals to be insufficient and wrong. So, to vindicate themselves they impose their will upon others through intimidation, name-calling, lawsuits, and social pressure. Their agenda is the promotion of their desires and their preferences over everyone else's. This kind of attitude is, of course, dangerous. Invariably, it will lead to oppression and destruction. This can take the form of physical persecution, financial penalty, and intimidation such that those with whom they disagree are powerless and relegated to the shadows of society to be tolerated and controlled. As Christians, we need to pray for righteousness to dwell in our land and for the ungodly to face their own in sin and its consequences. But, ultimately, we should pray that they find salvation in Christ and abandon their self-righteous hypocrisy.

 

 

 

  • 1. dictionary.com/browse/normal
  • 2. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normal
  • 3. en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/normal
  • 4. a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
  • 5. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
  • 6. A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
 
 

About The Author

Matt Slick is the President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.