I've written a number of posts (see here, here, here, and here) on the zero-sum game that homosexual activists have set up for moral traditionalists. In brief, my idea of the zero-sum game (admittedly rather unoriginal) is that the actual goals of homosexual activists are incompatible with the freedom of sexually normal, traditional people. The bulk of ordinary Americans might have been willing to come up with some kind of compromise, though what that compromise amounts to would have varied from person to person. Even non-discrimination laws that include "sexual orientation" are already a grave intrusion into the rights of moral traditionalists. I find it difficult to come up with a single aspect of the homosexual political agenda, which has always been about governmental requirements of non-discrimination in some area or other, which is not inherently coercive. Nonetheless, there are probably some who have thought that, if we just give them this (say, non-discrimination laws, civil unions), we will be allowed to get back to our lives and be left alone. The problem with this is two-fold. First, the "this" is always something that doesn't allow at least some people--businessmen, landlords, adoption agencies, wedding planners--simply to get on with their lives as before if they are moral traditionalists. The whole point of the agenda is to change the behavior of those people in their ordinary lives. So the "give them this and they'll leave us alone" presumption really involves saying, "I don't belong to any of those groups. I wouldn't actually have to change my daily life. And I don't care about what happens to people in those groups. I'll sacrifice their freedom in the hopes that the homosexual lobby will be satisfied and leave me alone." But the second problem is that the demands never were going to end there. Once non-discrimination in this or that area has been mandated, the further demand is that all dissent be punished, especially among employees, students, young people with their way to make in a profession, and so forth. The homosexual lobby was never willing to have issues like the morality of homosexuality, the wisdom of homosexual adoption, and the like be treated as things on which people could take varying views and have those varying views and discussion of them tolerated. The idea was always that eventually, as more and more acceptance was mandated, traditional views would be regarded as utterly intolerable and heinous and would be hounded out by officialdom. Such "bigotry" might be allowed to survive in people's most private, secret thoughts, at most. This meta-level position--that traditional morality itself is horrific, shocking, and beyond the pale--of course creates a zero-sum game that should be obvious to everyone, even if the zero-sum nature of the homosexual agenda wasn't obvious to everyone before. The faux "tolerance" of the homosexual lobby is a mandate for complete intolerance of the views of the majority of mankind.
As I put it in this earlier post:
Those golden-hearted souls who wish to take on the exhausting task of helping others--like Mr. and Mrs. Johns and Julea Ward--are the ones hit first by this requirement [to affirm homosexuality]. In those areas, the homosexual agenda now has such power that if you wish to help, they will define you instead as "harmful" if you do not promote their ideology. It is that stark. If you disagree with them, you are out. You may not help. You may not have the job. You may not do the work. It's the serious Christians or the homosexual activists. Both cannot win. Given the demands, no compromise is possible. We should not fool ourselves.
One of the more recent manifestations of the homosexual agenda is so-called "anti-bullying" legislation which seeks to enshrine homosexuality as defining a specially protected class throughout public schools and to make it a violation of all schools' policy, if not a crime, to criticize it. This is, in fact, the latest manifestation of the speech codes that some of us remember fighting on college campuses back in the 90's, but this time at the K-12 level.
The American Family Association of Michigan, in particular, has been pointing this out and has been fighting to make any "anti-bullying" legislation passed in Michigan include no special categories, no specially protected classes, in its language. The idea there is that in that case the legislation would not, at least on its face, give sanction to administrators and teachers to bully traditional students for their views.
In this story we have both a manifestation of the zero-sum game and a smoking gun for the actual agenda of "anti-bullying" policies. A student wrote (apparently at the student paper's invitation) an opinion piece, as part of a point-counterpoint series, arguing against homosexual adoption. He even had the temerity to use some Scripture passages in his article. The administration, when it became aware that the student newspaper was treating this as a subject open for discussion, a subject on which the traditional view would actually be aired and published, went into frantic spin mode. They hysterically apologized that anyone should have allowed such a piece to be published. The apology itself called the article a "form of bullying and disrespect." And, worst of all, the superintendent called in the offending young author, suggested that he had violated the school's "anti-bullying" policy, and proceeded to subject him to some actual bullying. The super attempted some direct Soviet-style arm-twisting, giving the student an opportunity to say he "regretted" his column. When that failed, the super threatened him directly: "We have the power to suspend you."
The student has retained legal counsel and a suit may follow. Good. I hope the school gets its hinder end well kicked. There needs to be at least a little push-back against such blatant, intimidating totalitarianism.
The supposed social contract in which we tolerate and air different points of view on politically controversial issues has turned out to be an utter sham once the liberals were in charge. It might, might have been possible for homosexual behavior to become more accepted in society than it previously was without our having these kinds of stories, had the metalevel view described above--that traditional opinions about sex are evilly bigoted and utterly beyond the pale--not become an item of the state secular religion and the gold standard of acceptable liberal discourse. Was that development itself inevitable? Sociologically, it probably was inevitable, especially given the homosexual activists' insistence that homosexuality be regarded as similar to race for purposes of public policy. (Frankly, the superintendent's bullying tactics were utterly unprofessional and would have been unacceptable even if the student had written a badly misguided column on a subject like race. But I make that comment only in passing.) For several decades social liberals have specialized in getting their preferred opinions declared not simply right but out of bounds for questioning. See my comments above about speech codes. It was only to be expected that this so-called "civil rights issue" would go the same way.
So it is mostly futile to look, like Diogenes with his lamp, for one honest liberal who will say, "I don't think homosexual acts are a sin, but I can respect people who do think that. I understand why they think that, and I have no intention of demonizing them. I think it's fine for their views to be represented, for them to continue to have influence in society. Their jobs or school positions shouldn't be in danger. That's ridiculous and Communistic, and I utterly deplore it."
I've known maybe one or two such. Back in the days when I was a member of the National Association of Scholars, I used to meet a few dinosaurs of that kind--political and social liberals, but sincere, not to say passionate, civil libertarians. People who still naively believed that the ACLU would defend social conservatives like the student in the story, against the homosexual lobby. Their breed is dying out now. Did it have to die out? I don't know for sure, though I suspect so. What I do know is that now, the zero-sum game is afoot, and social conservatives had best not be caught napping.