How “LGB” led to “T” | WORLD
Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth | Donate

How “LGB” led to “T”

We’ve moved from “Gay marriage harms no one” to “Here, kid, take these puberty blockers”

A message promoting same-sex marriage in New York City in 2011 Alamy/Mim Friday

How “LGB” led to “T”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling, which mandated same-sex marriage across the nation, is approaching its seventh anniversary this month, a month that coincides with what our secular ruling class festoons as “Pride Month.” It is 30 days of ostentatious perversion where a self-ascribed “oppressed” minority receives acclamation at every possible level of elite culture. Oh, to be so oppressed!

Last month, comedian Bill Maher delivered a lengthy monologue excoriating the absurdities and overreach of the LGBT movement. This is Bill Maher, mind you, the atheist and progressive iconoclast who views evangelicals as only slightly more evolved than the tadpole. Maher, as any liberal does, celebrates the tolerance and inclusion of our society but now sees how the LGBT movement, particularly the transgender front, is morphing into an absurd spectacle that earlier stages of the gay rights movement would not have predicted. But Christians and social conservatives did predict it because they saw that the unstoppable logic of denying sexual complementarity brings us to today’s destination.

We told you so. We told you that denying the conjugal relationship of male and female as the boundaries for marriage’s definition would lead to the overall unraveling of society’s most basic institution and eventually to human nature itself. Sure, homosexuals are not exclusively to blame. Heterosexuals tinkered with marriage in the form of no-fault divorce long before men were dressed as women in your local library. But the endpoint of defining marriage by emotion and eros rather than by bodily design explains the furor of how we got to the point where Target sells confused young females chest binders to hide puberty’s advance.

Social movements are built upon philosophies that are either right or wrong. But worldviews work themselves out by their own logic. The “T” movement of today’s generation occurred because of the logic set loose by yesterday’s “LGB” movement. It may be interesting that activist-intellectuals like Andrew Sullivan now look aghast at what has become of the zaniest elements of woke sexual ideology. But Sullivan seems to deny the fact that the transgender movement he questions today was put in place by the very arguments he made in favor of same-sex marriage in the 1990s. He was, it turns out, laying out the theoretical framework for the arguments that are now used to encourage the chemical castration of today’s youth.

We told you that denying the conjugal relationship of male and female as the boundaries for marriage’s definition would lead to the overall unraveling of society’s most basic institution and eventually to human nature itself.

It is all very logical and sequential. Once society refuses to acknowledge the limits and purposes of sexual design and the primacy of reproductive capacity in defining marriage, it is only a short time until the negation of reproduction leads to the negation of the body as the authoritative source for defining male and female. This is the direct result of denying creation order and natural law.

We should question it all, and then we should go immediately back to the authority of divine revelation and sound reason, the pillars that afford human nature and human society the sure foundation we need to avoid the pitfalls of human misery and social disintegration.

The absurdities are too numerous to point out. From “men have periods” and public school teachers showing far too great a desire to talk about sexuality with your children to “consensual non-monogamy” gaining a hearing in the Harvard Law Review, our culture is running with breakneck speed off a cliff of moral insanity. I do not know a gentler, more “winsome” way to make this known. Appeasing the moral insanity of our moment through hushed tones and reflexive nuance represents a failure to not only love our neighbor but also to speak clearly to them. So let me speak to the most avowed of activists (who are, admittedly, to be separated from the impressionable and struggling among us): You must repent of your anarchy against God’s design for the body and society’s proper organization. The good news is that Jesus holds open His arms to embrace the inner shame you suppress when supposedly living proudly in it.

We were told that if you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one. Well, that has now morphed into “Here, kid, take these puberty blockers.” Nature has a nature whether our society wants to admit it or not. We can cast off the limits of nature for only so long until nature strikes back. Society cannot avert its eyes for much longer to the growing list of absurdities. What must happen next is extending the line of questions around LGBT ideology back to its real source: the negation of God’s design and plan for human identity and sexuality.

Andrew T. Walker

Andrew is the managing editor of WORLD Opinions and serves as associate professor of Christian ethics at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is also a fellow with The Ethics and Public Policy Center. He resides with his family in Louisville, Ky.

Read the Latest from WORLD Opinions

Daniel Darling | Abortion and the GOP’s shifting coalitions

Adam M. Carrington | Actors like George Clooney have no real sway when it comes to politics

Brad Littlejohn | Christians should avoid the fog of hot takes

Denny Burk | Thoughts on the attempt to assassinate President Trump


Please wait while we load the latest comments...