Is the homosexual intolerance ignorant argument valid?
The success of the gay rights movement can be seen in the shifting public attitude toward homosexuality. Proponents of gay rights have repeated three pro-homosexual arguments, frequently and emphatically, for the past 30 years.
Those arguments have formed an ideology that some of our most powerful cultural institutions support, and have even converted the thinking of some Christians on the matter of homosexuality. They have become “conventional wisdom.” The pro-homosexual public not only rejects the traditional view on homosexuality, but derides it as ignorant, intolerant, and dangerous, which poses a formidable challenge to Christians. Any effort to “speak the truth in love” on this hot topic, therefore, requires Christians to respond in a reasoned, balanced way to these three criticisms.
Those arguments have formed an ideology that some of our most powerful cultural institutions support, and have even converted the thinking of some Christians on the matter of homosexuality. They have become “conventional wisdom.” The pro-homosexual public not only rejects the traditional view on homosexuality, but derides it as ignorant, intolerant, and dangerous, which poses a formidable challenge to Christians. Any effort to “speak the truth in love” on this hot topic, therefore, requires Christians to respond in a reasoned, balanced way to these three criticisms.
The innateness argument claims that homosexuality is “inborn”; therefore, it is normal and God ordained. Traditionalists can respond that although homosexual orientation may not be chosen, homosexual acts clearly are chosen, making the person who chooses them morally responsible. Human nature, further, is tainted by original sin; therefore, as likely inborn but immoral tendencies such as alcoholism demonstrate, “inborn” does not necessarily mean “normal” or “God ordained.” The insignificance argument states that most homosexuals are decent people; therefore, their homosexuality is insignificant.
Traditionalists can respond that the Bible asserts, and human experience confirms, that homosexuality is a significant sin that has negative consequences. We observe those negative consequences in homosexual individuals, in children raised by same-sex parents, and in societies that accept homosexual behavior as normal. The intolerance argument maintains that the traditional viewpoint is ignorant and dangerous; therefore, it must be silenced. Traditionalists can respond that we fully recognize the worth of homosexuals as persons, and reject the irrational belief that to disagree with someone’s behavior is somehow to dehumanize or “bash” him or her.
