People don’t like to be afraid (or be called names, for that matter). But “afraid” seems to be precisely how homosexual lobbyists and others are trying to portray conservative Christians, precisely how they are labeling people who are actually quite rational and not the least bit prey to “homophobia”. The question is, who gave them these magic powers to “diagnose” what others are afraid of? And if we are really so afraid, maybe they could do us the favor of telling us what is it that we are so afraid of: Homosexual persons? Homosexual lifestyle? Rainbow culture? Naturally, no one ever comes out to say what it is that we are afraid of, because this generalized accusation of homophobia is based not on facts, but on subjective interpretation.
So why are we told that we are afraid? Because some people equate “criticism” in the word’s original sense–i.e. a reasoned-out judgment about something’s objective truth- with fear. This mixing of the two, however, couldn’t be farther from the way things really are. Fear comes from lack of understanding, whereas true criticism comes from a profound understanding. When a math teacher critiques a student’s imperfect performance, he does so not out of fear or misunderstanding, but rather because he understands where the student has made a mistake.
Actually, it is the homosexual movement which seems to be afraid. Of whom? Of the very people it portrays as afraid of them: Christians with “traditional” values. The homosexual movement appears to try every possible means to silence objections by Christian groups, and the reason for this should be fairly obvious: for the most part, they are not interested in dialogue or debate, but in having others accept as a “given” what is only an opinion. Debate opens to the truth, silence leads to burying the truth. The many lawsuits and homophobia accusations against those who promote traditional Christian values in the public square are a testimony to the attempt to bury truth by silencing challenges.
The claim that Christians are afraid does in fact have some truth, but not in the way that many think. What gives Christians something to be afraid of in the promotion of homosexuality is not the fact in itself, but the ideological foundation at its base: relativism.
“Relativism” is a term people have likely come across before, but we can use an example that gives us a more complete understanding of it.
Nearly every American high-school graduate has read George Orwell’s famous novel Animal Farm, meant to be an allegory on the dangers of Communism. The plot is simple: a group of farm pigs decide they no longer wish to obey their human masters and rally the other animals into helping them oust the former “dictators”. The animals succeed in removing the humans from the farm and begin to operate it on their own. Little by little, however, the farm pigs begin to establish their own dictatorship over the other animals in a concealed way, with the justification that “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” In the end, the other animals realize –but by then too late- that rather than finding true freedom in getting rid of the humans, they have become slaves under other farm animals.
The relativism in the story is symbolized in the implicit question of the farm pigs: What gives the farmers the right to govern the farm? Aren’t we just as worthy of being the masters? In other words, what makes them different from me? And according to the farm pigs, the answer is: nothing. There is no difference between animals and humans, so the animals are just as worthy of running the farm as the humans. What is more, should it be necessary to get rid of the humans (and even a few farm animals) to make that possible, it would be an understandable and acceptable consequence.
We can’t help but notice that in the story, relativism becomes in the end nothing more than a new kind of totalitarianism. Trying to get rid of what seemed an unfair “imposition” of servitude under the farmers and claim their right to “equality,” the majority of the animals were forced to give up that right and accept the imposition of servitude under a few.
It’s important, however, not to jump to the conclusion that every “imposition” necessarily lead to some form of dictatorship. The obedience imposed by parents on their children, for example, is due not to some cruel totalitarianism on behalf of the parents, but to the very fact that they are parents and their children have the duty to respect them. Said in a more explicit way, since a parent, by nature, is someone who takes care of a child and looks after his wellbeing and education, it will often be necessary that the parent make demands of the child for the child’s own good. The child, for his part, as a person still in the process of education, is expected to trust in the guidance of his parents and carry out what they ask of him. It would be foolish to suggest that this relationship is some kind of artificial construction invented by parents to keep their kids in line and subjected to the parents’ “individual beliefs” and that, since there are no real differences between parents and children, the children should have equal right to demand obedience from the parents. This is obviously not the case.
The strange thing is: the relativism latent in the homosexual ideology promotes just such an idea. It claims there is no real difference between a relationship between a man and a woman, and one between two members of the same sex; no real difference between a child raised by a father and mother, and one raised by two mothers or two fathers; no real difference between the marriage of a husband and wife as a biological and psychological setting for intimacy and the natural begetting of children, and the current petition for “marriage” between two homosexual partners for reasons which, though perhaps sincere, are based on mere sentiment or economic utility.
The objection Christians have to giving equal status to homosexuality –and thus the reason for their critique of it– is not because of a desire to discriminate against those who question the status quo of Judeo-Christian moral principles, but rather because of a desire to uphold and preserve those specific institutions (marriage, family, sexual morality, etc.) whose value comes not from an arbitrary decision or from religious affiliation, but from human nature itself, and whose recognition as such is being threatened by the ideological and legal crusade to render such institutions “relative,” i.e. true only for those who feel in agreement with such “beliefs.” Such a relativism would be tantamount to saying that, in order to give value to everyone’s beliefs, no one’s beliefs have value. But true respect for one another does not consist in giving each other an equal value of zero. True respect means giving everything the value and status that it deserves.
The homosexual agenda may hide behind government institutions and new batches of accusations against “homophobes,” and perhaps eventually even come to manipulate the law to the degree that homosexual relationships obtain the same status as marriage; but laws (and lawsuits) do not make the truth. And the real truth, written into human nature, will always remain.
Are Christians afraid of homosexuality? Certainly not. Are they afraid that the truth will be buried in the effort to make homosexual lifestyle a commonplace reality? Most definitely.
Join the new media evangelization. Your tax-deductible gift allows Catholic.net to build a culture of life in our nation and throughout the world. Please help us promote the Church's new evangelization by donating to Catholic.net right now. God bless you for your generosity.
|Print Article||Email Friend||Palm Download||Forums||Questions||More in this Channel||Up|
Write a comment on this article|