This, of course, is the liberal accusation toward anyone opposing gay marriage and gender-free bathrooms and shower rooms. The liberal Democrat governor of Louisiana, John Bel Edwards, is using this argument in defense of his executive order requiring that state contracts only be granted to those embracing LGBT positions, thus effectively disqualifying evangelicals. Fortunately, Louisiana Atty. Gen. Jeff Landry is opposing him. Edward’s claims that Landry is on the wrong side of history.
When Dr. Ben Carson was candidate for the Republican nomination for president, in an interview with Chris Cuomo, Cuomo made a similar accusation against Carson.
Perhaps superficially this argument may sound convincing. Back in the dark ages, that would be up until the 1980s, Americans had a negative view of homosexuality and homosexual marriage. Homosexuality was even listed in the psychiatric diagnostic manual as a pathology. But since then, America, and the Western world in general, have entered the age of Enlightenment in which we now recognize homosexuality to be on a par with heterosexuality and therefore an expression of diversity to be celebrated.
Likewise, in the previous age of ignorance, that would be up until about 2014, Americans embraced the archaic taboo against biological men accessing women’s shower rooms. But now, history, about two years of it, has opened our eyes to the anti-intellectual and immoral nature of this Neanderthal belief.
Consequently, failure to adopt the LGBT agenda means historical regression to the age of ignorance. The Left further supports this argument by drawing the parallel to racism and slavery. Anyone opposing gay marriage or banning biological men from women’s shower rooms must automatically be classified with Bull Connor.
An obvious problem with this liberal rationale regarding opponents of the LGBT agenda being on the wrong side of history is its use of the term “history.” This designation conjures up the embraced by society of a progressive concept over long periods of time during which its superiority and benefits become evident. Positions imposed upon Americans against their will by elitists and judges a couple of decades or years ago hardly warrant the term “history.”
The underlying error with this line of thinking resides in the assumption that all change constitutes progress. It asserts that what is new must be good. It believes that history invariably moves in the right direction. Therefore, when change comes, intelligent people must blindly follow it, confident that it is moving humanity toward progress.
In 1942 the Nazis could have used the same argument against anyone advocating for a democratic approach to government. Obviously such opposition to the policies of Hitler would have placed them on the wrong side of history.
Or we could make the same point even more convincingly in regard to the advance of communism. Those objecting to the massive murders of Stalin or Chairman Mao, whose combined despotism dominated a significant segment of the world’s land mass, were on the wrong side of history. This flow of history was further confirmed by the embrace of communism in Cuba, in Nicaragua, and at Harvard. Reagan was obviously on the wrong side of history.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that some changes are for the worse. They do not represent the progression but the digression of society. Nazism and Communism provide prime examples.
Since we can’t blindly trust “history,” we must analyze the changes that it brings to determine their validity. One means of doing so is by considering the source. The LGBT agenda has been imposed on America by the Left. Though those comprising this elite class consider themselves to be the smartest people in the room, in reality every program they implement produces failure. Think of the disaster engendered by our welfare system and open borders. They give us no reason to believe that their ideas are superior, but instead we have good cause to suspect that they will lead to disaster.
Since the Left dominates American academia, we might be made to think that the Left has imposed the LGBT agenda on our nation because of a series of research projects that have shown its superiority. The fact is that no such research exists, and even worse, the Left would oppose any honest research in regard to the homosexual lifestyle, its impact on the individual, and its effect on society as a whole.
Regarding the Left’s attempt to identify the homosexual agenda with the racial issue, it is evident that comparing skin color with sexual behavior entails equating apples and oranges. Many in the black community have raised objection to this comparison.
The good news is that with the election of Donald Trump, apparently our society is moving toward a more conservative point of view. We can only hope that the Left will respond by getting on the right side of history.