Refuse Their Double Standard, And Don’t Forget to “Use” It - Part I

“Therefore you have no excuse o man, whoever you are, when you judge another, for in passing judgment on him you condemn yourself because you, the judge, are doing the very same thing” – Romans 2:1

In the on-going debate over homosexual acceptance, adherents of the pro-gay agenda (henceforth referred to as the “pros”) habitually impose on those who oppose such an agenda (the “cons”), a standard which the former refuse for themselves.  Furthermore, it is highly significant that the pros vigorously advance their agenda with a kind of “moral” outrage that their undergirding philosophy directly repudiates.  My charge at bottom is that the pros are thereby committing two serious rational errors.  They are first of all insisting on one standard of conduct for their opponents which they make no attempt to keep themselves.  And they are effectively claiming a “moral” superiority for their own position which itself depends on the non-existence of binding moral standards.  Both involve the imposition of a double standard onto those who disagree with the present pro-homosexual agenda.

Though I have my convictions about the matter, it is not the intention of this blog to discuss the merits, per se, of either position in this debate.  For the sake of full disclosure I oppose the pro-gay agenda.  At the same time, I hold no personal animosity toward homosexuals.  I have no interest in interfering with their private lives.  I often enjoy associating with them as people.  I do not use the standard of sexual orientation in order to determine my level of acceptance of another person.  The charges so often laid against adherents of my position, that we are “hate-mongers” are so utterly absurd as to be unworthy of serious comment.  Such insults reflect the kind of reaction expected of immature children, not clear-thinking adults.  The fact that bigotry can be found in the “con” camp is actually comparable to the kind of bigotry that I often find in the “pro” camp.  Indeed, the fact that bigotry exists as a whole in this world is not a “sexual” matter.  Neither is it a “religious,” or “fundamentalist Christian” matter.  It is a matter of human nature in general whenever individuals refuse to regard others, who happen to be “different,” as having innate value.  Tolerance, properly understood is a calling that is to be urged on every human being.  Not one person on either side of the issue at hand is exempted.

Before I return to the fundamental concern of this blog, there is one other matter that simply must be addressed.  The very word “tolerance” absolutely demands to be defined with clarity, so as to be practiced with consistency.  Tolerance does not call for setting aside of our moral convictions.  Therefore it cannot demand our obliteration of moral judgments about certain practices in general.  An “a-moral” culture (can we even imagine such an existence?) cannot technically be a tolerant culture for the very reason that tolerance involves the deliberate acceptance of another person in spite of the existence of consequential moral and spiritual differences.  I for one do not ask others to deny who they are or what they believe to satisfy my personal convenience.  For that matter I personally distrust people who change positions just to gain influence or please others.  I believe the higher and more difficult calling laid upon us is to endeavor to live and work together in spite of our differences.

To be continued...