Yes, I’m Trying to Eliminate Your Way of Thinking
On the ever-martyred Christian right, there is a particularly hilarious and absurd meme that the left and especially LGBT activists are trying to eliminate their opinions from polite speech, marginalize their beliefs and make it socially unacceptable (they often also claim illegal) to “believe that marriage is only between one man and one woman.” Of course, that particular belief is only one part of a whole slew of accompanying beliefs, such as that “sodomy” should still be a crime, as should “crimes against nature” that are used to target queer people. But even if that were the only thing that came with that particular belief, it would still be ridiculous and unsupportable by anything other than stories.
Still, we have people like the odious Matt Barber who love to make Nazi comparisons and are sure that we’re trying to marginalize his way of thinking.
Many Christians have been warning for years that the radical homosexual activist lobby is made up of Christian-hating fascists who are in rebellion against both God and nature, who are hell-bent on criminalizing Christianity and pushing to the fringes anyone who publicly acknowledges natural human sexuality and the age-old, immutable institution of legitimate marriage as created by God.
Liberals are never content to hold their own ideas and to coexist with those who may not share them. They do not “tolerate” dissent, and they do not debate those who disagree with them. They simply declare their opponents to be enemies of all that is decent and good in the world, marginalizing conservative thought while declaring illegal (in a de facto sense [KN: See what he did there?], and sometimes explicitly by policy and through legislation[KN: Give one example]) any idea they do not like.This is not hyperbole…
If you are a liberal, you have rights. If you are a conservative, you don’t. You are, in fact, an evil, hateful person if you believe in traditional morality or, God help you, Christianity. You must therefore be denigrated, punished and silenced – and that’s only because the libs haven’t worked up the courage to murder you.Yet.
What you are willing to debate – what is effectively “up for discussion” – is frequently a reflection of what you think, in principle, you might be willing to give up. What you are able to put on the table of public discourse are the things you don’t feel too threatened to let go of…I was discussing, and discoursing, and debating rights which are not mine to put up for discussion. By opening that debate, even taking the pro-choice side, I was essentially putting women’s right to autonomy on the table in a way I have no business doing. Engaging in abstract philosophical discussion about other people’s rights in a public forum, when those rights are constantly under threat in the current political and social climate, and when the answer to the questions you raise will never affect you directly, is a callous and thoughtless thing to do.
I don’t care if you sincerely and truly hold that God condemns homosexuality as a sin. I refuse to give that a pass. I oppose the belief that healing should come through faith rather than through medicine because it results in dead children. In the same way, I oppose the belief that homosexuality is sin because it results in dead children.