The LGBTQ movement's Humpty Dumpty syndrome

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

--Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

President Trump has frightened the cultural left by saying that he will "always defend religious freedom." Predictably, it has responded by accusing the cultural right of redefining religious freedom to justify discrimination and impose their beliefs on others. It does this as part of its ongoing effort to redefine discrimination in order to restrict religious freedom and impose their beliefs on others.

It is certainly possible to discriminate against people of a given sexual orientation, just as it is possible to discriminate against people of any other ontological characteristic. But the conflict arises not because anyone is upset about anyone else's sexual orientation, but because their ethical beliefs conflict with certain sexual behavior. The sexual behavior of another person is, of course, their business, and none of anyone else's- until an effort is made to compel others to approve of it.

One may approve or disapprove of behavior, a matter of personal belief which is also nobody else's business. But one cannot discriminate against it.

Considered another way, the issue arises not from the cultural right's desire to impose their beliefs upon anyone else, but rather from the cultural left's ongoing effort to impose their beliefs on the cultural right and force them to behave in accordance with the cultural left's beliefs and contrary to their own.

"Progressives" in general, and the LGBTQ movement, in particular, are masters at the art of winning the debate by framing the question. That their definition of the question may not fairly state the matter at issue is not a problem. Quite the opposite, in fact. It provides a virtually unbeatable advantage in any argument to whichever side can pull it off. As in the case of their successful effort to reframe the issue of marriage redefinition as "marriage equality" in the media and elsewhere (thereby begging the very question at issue, namely whether the condition of gay and lesbian couples are in all relevant ways even comparable to those of heterosexual couples), to accuse traditionalists of redefining words and seeking to impose their beliefs upon others is a simple effort to circumvent reality by dishonestly manipulating language, defining the terms of the debate in such a way as to convict their opponents in the public mind of the very thing they are trying to do themselves. And when you have the media and the culture's opinion makers in your corner, it's a fairly easy task to pull off.

"Progressives," and sexual "progressives" in particular, are very much like Humpty Dumpty, who explained that "when I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean, and nothing more or less." Perhaps rather than the rainbow flag, the emblem of the LGBTQ movement ought to be an egg sitting on a wall.

Mind you, all of this is based not on anything the administration has actually done. It's merely a knee-jerk response to those frightening, un-American, and inherently bigoted words, "religious liberty."

Who knows? The next thing you know, the right may be demanding freedom of speech!