50 Shades of Anti-LGBTQ Rhetoric

Last updated on: April 5, 2018 at 5:00 am by Libby Anne

50 Shades of Anti-LGBTQ Rhetoric 2018-04-03T07:23:29-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I recently came upon an article which quoted a Christian activist claiming that he was motivated by “love” to support a Kansas Republican Party resolution condemning all efforts to “validate transgender identity.” The activist’s statement was as follows:

Eric Teetsel, president of the Family Policy Alliance of Kansas who proposed the resolution, told The Wichita Eagle that he was “motivated by love” to put forward the document because he believes that the GOP should stand up for what he described as Christian principles.

“Ultimately, an ideology that says you can determine your own gender identity is broken and it’s going to lead to a lot of pain, and that’s why it’s important to bring us back to what we know to be true and good,” Teetsel said.

“It is concern for the well-being of others that drives us to seek out what is true and not just for society, but for them personally,” he added.

The claim being made here is that it’s worse to allow transgender individuals to transition than it is to force them to live as their assigned gender, with (Christian) counseling and therapies to help them accept “the way God created them.” Of course, the science manifestly states that that is not the case. Individuals are worse off when they are not allowed to transition. But the science has not always mattered to evangelicals—particularly those whose science starts (and sometimes ends) with the Bible.

But as I read Teetsel’s statement, I thought about some other comments I had read recently. Namely, Everett Piper of Oklahoma Wesleyan University wrote an op-ed comparing LGBTQ individuals with ISIS.

If you’re still not feeling a bit unstable on this slippery slope, I recommend this simple exercise: Go to any article in any magazine or website that argues for “conversations” about sexual morality and simply replace the acronym of the day with another set of letters.

For example, every time you see LGBTQ in an article, simply replace those letters with ISIS. Change nothing else. Do this throughout the entire column in question.

In doing this, something will quickly become quite obvious. Sentences will emerge such as these: “Love is love and ISIS has the right to love who they want to love.” “The ISIS community simply wants to be accepted and affirmed.” “What right does anyone have to refuse to bake a cake for an ISIS wedding?”

As such absurdities jump off the page, hopefully it becomes clear how absolutely ridiculous our culture’s game of sexual politics has become.

This is not the first time Piper has used such language. (Piper has the ear of some powerful individuals. He was an invited speaker at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in January, at the announcement of the department’s new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division.) Nor is Piper alone in using harsh language (or imaging) for LGBTQ individuals.

Within evangelicalism today, there seem to be two disparate ways of talking about LGBT individuals and identities. The first involves disgust and revulsion and (often times) painting LGBT individuals as monsters or perverts. The second involves protestations of love and statements that gay and lesbian individuals can change or find meaning and purpose with God by living celibate lives. Both rhetorical approaches, however, do typically have at least one thing in common—opposition to expanding or protecting LGBT rights.

Consider where Teetsel’s proclamations of “love” take him:

Teetsel has decried the idea of bakers and other wedding vendors being forced by nondiscrimination laws to serve same-sex couples because, “The belief that marriage is solely for one man and woman ought not to be included in that list alongside racism and miscegenation, for it is a belief rooted in love.”

The use of the term “miscegenation” is ironic. Teetsel surely meant “misogyny,” but the word he used is a reference to interracial births. The irony is that promoters of segregation frequently argued that they were doing a kindness in forbidding certain kinds of contact between the races, because the children of interracial unions belonged not to one race or the other and thus did not have a place where they “fit.” Forbidding interracial intermingling was an act of kindness, they insisted. In other words, anti-LGBTQ sentiment is not the first bigotry to be cloaked in language of love, kindness, and a faux insistence that the oppressors are simply looking out for the needs of the oppressed.

Teetsel should be well aware that misogyny, too, has often been (and often still is) cloaked in language of love and kindness. Women’s rightful place is in the home, the argument goes—that is where God has designed woman to be, and that is where woman is happiest. Indeed, those who make these arguments frequently point to sexual harassment in the workplace as evidence that women would be better off if they stayed out of the workplace and concentrated on raising children in their homes, where they would be “safe.”

Even efforts to limit women’s access to divorce are framed in this rhetoric—divorced women suffer financial and other problems, the argument goes. Women—even those in troubled relationships—would be better off if they stayed married.

I’ve seen bigoted rhetoric of “love” play out in toxic ways my own community of origin—among evangelical and fundamentalist Christian homeschooling families. The idea is that it may be more “loving” to cut a wayward grown child off, or to deny them access to their siblings, than it would be to include them in the family and accept (or overlook) their questioning and sin. Cutting them out of the family until they repent may hurt, but it may also hasten repentance and bring them back to Jesus more quickly, thus sparing them an eternity in hell.

People are capable of doing terrible things in the name of “love.”

When it comes to areas like this, it may be best to focus less on intent and rhetoric and more on actions. Arguably, the extent that the actions of those like Teeter, who couch their bigotry in a rhetoric of “love,” differ from the actions of those like Piper, whose bigotry is stated less than nicely, is the extent of the actual distinction between the two. Do Teetsel’s actions differ from Piper’s?

It is possible that Teetsel would treat LGBTQ individuals he might personally come in contact with with more respect than Piper would. However, whatever his rhetoric, Teetsel’s organization supports banning transgender individuals from the military and supports the use of anti-transgender and ant-gay “conversion” therapy on minors—and that’s just the start. Regardless of how he has couched his rhetoric—regardless of how many times he professes to “love” LGBTQ people—Teetsel’s actions do very real harm to LGBTQ individuals.

Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism

LGBTQ

Previous Post

April 4, 2018

Goldilocks and the Garden of Eden

Next Post

April 6, 2018 Voice in the Wind: Hadassah Is Saved by a Doctor (and her Mojo)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I am a coat of many colors that sparked jealousy among brothers. What am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

A royal garment The priests robe Jacob's robe Joseph's coat