Laurie Higgins to Totalitarian Brit: Saying Homosexuality Is Immoral Is No Incitement to Hatred

Homosexualists seek to use repressive powers of state to silence all expressions of opposition

The following is Laurie Higgins’ response to British pro-homosexual activist Peter Bradley’s e-mail to AFTAH stating, “You are very lucky that you live in the United States as we have laws in the United Kingdom about inciting hatred based on sexual orientation… here you would be imprisoned; and justly so.” Other responses to Bradley’s letter are HERE by Ron Loree and HERE by fellow Brit David Burdett.

__________________________

By Laurie Higgins

After reading Mr. Bradley’s troubling email to AFTAH, I am even more deeply thankful for our proper understanding here in the United States that liberty depends on the freedom to speak and practice one’s religion. If, as Mr. Bradley claims, I would be imprisoned in the United Kingdom for what I’m about to say, I’m sure glad I live here.

I must respectfully disagree with an implied contention in Mr. Bradley’s polemic: making claims about the immorality of certain kinds of conduct does not constitute incitement to hatred. If it did then Mr. Bradley’s implicit claims that Mr. LaBarbera’s actions are immoral would constitute inciting hatred toward people of faith who hold that homosexual conduct is wrong.

Do public statements about the immorality of promiscuity, adult consensual incest, bestiality, polyamory, selfishness, gambling, smoking, or aggression constitute incitement of hatred toward those who are promiscuous, incestuous, polyamorous, selfish, gamblers, smokers, or aggressive? If Mr. Bradley deems these kinds of moral claims as somehow constituting jail-worthy offenses, his utopia will be a place of moral anarchy in which no public moral statements can be uttered, including his statements about Mr. LaBarbera. Or would some elite group decide which moral propositions can be made in public and which send people to jail?

Many here in America view the right to speak freely as fundamental to human liberty. We value the marketplace of ideas in which bad ideas are challenged by better ideas.

Apparently, the “diversity” Mr. Bradley exalts does not include the faith communities that throughout their long histories have held that homosexual conduct is profoundly displeasing to a just and holy God and if unrepentantly engaged in will result in eternal separation from Him. Mr. Bradley’s diversity is narrowly circumscribed in such a way that it excludes philosophical diversity on what precisely homosexuality is and whether homosexual conduct is moral or not.

Mr. Bradley libelously claims that AFTAH is guilty of “inciting hatred based on sexual orientation.” Once again social radicals redefine terms, trusting that few will notice their willful disregard for accuracy in meaning. Believing that homosexual conduct is immoral no more constitutes hatred for homosexuals, than believing that selfish conduct is immoral constitutes hatred for selfish people. The specious claim that people who believe that homosexual conduct is wrong hate homosexuals remains a pernicious, malignant lie no matter how many times homosexualists spew it out.

Mr. Bradley calls the articles on AFTAH “prejudiced rubbish” evidently ignorant of the meaning of prejudice.“Prejudice” refers to “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.” As such, opinions formed, even negative opinions, after careful consideration do not represent prejudice.

Mr. Bradley expresses astonishment that Mr.LaBarbera’s “life’s work is dedicated (every day) to furthering your cause of hatred.” To reiterate, believing conduct is wrong, even hating conduct, does not constitute hatred of persons. Perhaps Mr. Bradley hates those whose beliefs and behaviors he believes are wrong, but he ought not to project his feelings and attitudes on to others.

Homosexualists seek to persuade the American public that the following utterly fallacious and destructive propositions are true: that homosexuality is equivalent to race; that homosexuality is biologically determined; that the possible presence of some biological factor in shaping same-sex attraction renders same-sex conduct automatically moral; that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexual conduct; that gender is socially constructed; that gender identity disorder (aka “transgenderism) is not a disorder; and that same-sex marriage will not affect the traditional, natural family. The problem is that widespread societal acceptance of these fallacious propositions will wreak havoc on American society in countless ways.

We can glimpse the contours of the future through the seething hate-filled rhetoric of Mr. Bradley: homosexualists seek to silence absolutely, using the repressive powers of the state, all expressions of opposition to the arguable claims of homosexualists about the nature and morality of homosexuality. They find no compunction about abrogating fundamental speech and religious rights if doing so serves their unrighteous goal of normalizing homosexuality and gender identity disorder.

I’m sure Mr. LaBarbera has many more things he would like to be doing. If only more people of faith—Jews, Muslims, Catholics, and Protestants, and especially their religious leaders—would acknowledge and address unequivocally, unapologetically, and directly the nature and morality of homosexuality and the threat posed to speech and religious rights, parental rights, and truth, then maybe Mr. LaBarbera could do some of those other more enjoyable things. If homosexualists would stop trying to impose their unproven philosophical presuppositions regarding the nature and morality of homosexuality onto the rest of society through rhetorical manipulation, demagoguery, the usurpation of public education, and the usurpation of the judicial system, then perhaps Mr. LaBarbera would be freed from this onerous, oppressive, thankless but yet absolutely essential work.

The problem is not that Mr. LaBarbera dedicates too much time to this serious threat to family, faith, and freedom, but that too many dedicate so little.

Mr. Bradley wonders what God must think about Mr. LaBarbera “making decisions for [God].” Although it’s unclear precisely what decision Mr. Bradley thinks Mr. LaBarbera has made for God, it’s quite clear what God thinks of homosexual conduct. What we know comes not from our own selfish, protean imaginations, but from His Holy and inspired Word, which tells us in no uncertain terms what God thinks about the nature and morality of homosexuality. And the traditional understanding that Scripture teaches that homosexual conduct is an abomination to God is not some wild exegetical interpretation. Most of the greatest theologians, both Jewish and Christian, throughout history and still today acknowledge that God abhors homosexual conduct.

My guess would be that one day God will say to Mr. LaBarbera “Well done my good and faithful servant.”

Unlike Mr. Bradley, whom I presume has never even met Mr. LaBarbera, I know him well. I have never read one word written by him or heard one word spoken privately by him that even suggests that he hates those who self-identify as homosexual.

I too believe that homosexual conduct is immoral, and yet I have never felt even mild dislike of someone because they are homosexual. My beliefs do not diminish my recognition that everyone is created in the image and likeness of God and, therefore, by virtue of their humanness are worthy of respect. That respect is accorded to all despite our universal engagement in acts that diminish our dignity. My beliefs about homosexuality do not affect my appreciation for the admirable traits of those who self-identify as homosexual, or the pleasure I take in their company, or the love I feel for them. Everyone I know who shares my beliefs on the morality of homosexuality, shares these experiences of admiration, appreciation, and love—including Mr. LaBarbera.

Laurie Higgins is a freelance writer based in Deerfield, Illinois. She can be reached through AFTAH by writing americansfortruth@comcast.net.