Consider this scenario. A married man and father announces that he is leaving his wife and children in order to be “true to himself.” He has found another love, the most genuine love he has ever known, and he has already moved in with his new lover.
How would society react to him?
“You, sir, are an unfaithful, disloyal adulterer. You should be ashamed of yourself, leaving your wife and kids for another woman.”
He replies, “But it’s not for another woman. It’s for another man. I’m gay and I’ve come to terms with my identity. I won’t go on with the charade any longer, and I’m proud of my decision.”
How does society react now?
“You, sir, are a courageous hero. You have set an example for others to follow, and you should be commended for your boldness and integrity.”
So, if you commit adultery and abandon your family out of heterosexual desires, you are a despicable human being. But if you do it out of homosexual desires, you are a hero and champion. You even become an international celebrity, albeit not without some controversy.
Just ask Jim McGreevey, the former governor of New Jersey. Newsweek called his book The Confession, in which he recounts his own story, “An astonishingly candid memoir...brave and powerful.”
If Bill Clinton had left Hillary Clinton, finding his true love in Monica Lewinsky and writing a book about it, do you think his story would have been praised with similar words?
I’m quite aware that, in some cases, the wives were deeply sympathetic to their husbands’ struggles, recognizing that their spouses were fighting inner demons and were embarrassed at their inability to satisfy their wives.
LGBT activists would also tell us that, had society not forced gays into the closet, these men would never have been under pressure to marry women in the first place.
And I can only imagine the sense of emotional relief they experienced when they finally “came out.”
But none of this changes the fact that: 1) they broke the wedding vows they made; 2) many of them had marriages that were functioning well before they came out; 3) they ultimately put their own needs above those of their spouses and children; 4) they did not (and could not) truly calculate the long-term effects of their decision on their family; 5) in many cases, they were unfaithful while married and it was their relationship to another man that caused them to come out.
How is any of this commendable or praiseworthy? Where is the courage in it, let alone the integrity? Why does homosexuality somehow turn immorality into morality? And why, if you’re a professing Christian, does it land you an interview on The View?
I once read the story of an Orthodox Jewish man who was training to be a rabbi when he realized that, to his dismay, he was not sexually attracted to women. Then, while riding a New York City subway, he found himself intensely attracted to another man, having sex with that stranger the same day.
Yet when he recounts this story, which can only be condemned as immoral by all branches of Orthodox Judaism, he says not a negative word. He utters not a syllable of, “This, of course, was a terribly wrong act, since sex out of wedlock is forbidden, particularly with the same sex.”
No, this was his day of discovery, of recognizing that he was gay. The immoral act of fornication now become part of his positive, self-discovery process. (I’ve read similar stories written by “gay Christian” ministers.)
Today, LGBT activism has added another twist to the story, not only changing the rules of morality but also of fairness.
Consider this scenario. A highly decorated, female high-school athlete is found to have an unfair advantage over her peers, because of which that they are not competing on level ground. How would society view her accomplishments?
“You should be ashamed of yourself, taking supplements or bending the rules or doing whatever you did to win. That is so unfair to the other girls, and you should be stripped of your medals.”
She replies, “But I’m transgender.”
How does society react now?
“We are so sorry for being critical! The fact that you’re a biological male shouldn’t be held against you when competing with the other girls. And if they have a problem with it, they’re just a bunch of insecure transphobes.”
The tragic irony of this is that the Obama administration is now threatening schools with the loss of government funding if they do not embrace the demands of transgender activism, citing the alleged violation of Title IX.
But one of the primary purposes of Title IX was to ensure equal opportunities for female student athletes. After all, on average, males have a biological advantage over females when it comes to athletic competition, because of which Title IX protections make perfect sense – that is, perfect sense unless we’re talking about transgender-identified students, in which case rules of fairness go out the window.
So what if your daughter is now competing for an athletic scholarship with someone else’s son.
So what if the girls’ softball team now loses consistently to its archrival because their new star player is a biological male.
And, as we are now learning, so what if your teenage daughters are terribly upset by the presence of a physical boy in their locker rooms and shower stalls.
The only issue is that the transgender-identified student feels safe and affirmed, regardless of how this affects everyone else.
As the Charlotte Observer infamously counseled, girls will just have to get over the “discomfort” of seeing male genitalia in their locker rooms.
Needless to say, when it comes to marriages affected by transgender issues, normal standards disappear as well. Thus the man who breaks his wife’s heart after decades of marriage and destroys his relationship with his kids is deemed a courageous hero if he did it because, he says, he could no longer live as a man and had to identify as a woman.
This is all part of a larger societal narrative in which freedoms of speech, religion, and conscience are consistently trumped by gay and transgender “rights.”
Should we be surprised that wrong has now become right and unfair has now become fair, all in the name of LGBT activism?