LGBT+ issues have escalated in the last decade. Attitudes of and towards the LGBT+ community have radically changed. In the last few decades, the today called "sexual minorities" who used to be shamed and ashamed have surfaced to the main stages of society with pride to celebrate their condition.
What is more interesting, from the social point of view, is that those changes demand now an absolute allegiance to their cause, failure of which will automatically place the disagreeable in the camp of the oppressors. A movement that claimed tolerance for themselves have emerged now as a new kind of intolerance, not only towards the people who disagree with them and even those who prefer to rest on the fence. The world is now being forced into a new polarization: either you are a passionate and active defender of the rainbow flag or you are a bigot who denies sexual minorities their basic human rights.
How did we get here in the short of span of merely a decade?
Many of these changes are due to a rightful need for people with SSA and others to claim their right to be part of society without shame. This core of truth, we cannot afford to dismiss if we want to develop into more human societies. This goal could reasonably be achieved by claiming equal dignity for all without distinction of sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. However, the twist to claim those rights are predicated on new ideas that been upgraded to the dignity of cultural dogmas that no one is entitled to challenge.
The first new dogma is that gender identity is first, totally disconnected from sexual identity, thus, free from the binary traditional boxes of sex. Second, that gender identity is a choice some people are entitled to make. Other cultural dogmas enjoy a bit more years in the popular minds. Ideas like the essential condition for marriage or sexual activity is love, regardless the sexual identity of the parties.
It is however forgotten than the common denominator of those new dogmas is a radical change of the idea of freedom. Freedom used to be understood as a capacity of human nature, the result of the interaction of reason and will. Nominalism first did away with the reality of universal concepts. If there is no a universal human nature that we all share in common, freedom needs to be claimed as something disconnected from such nature. In the 20th century this freedom was upgraded as freedom from human nature itself, its inclinations, its body, its limitations, etc.
Only with this cultural background could a society of "intelligent" beings come to embrace the belief that we are free to define what marriage is and even their identity.
That only explains the possibility of accepting the idea but not the urgency to believe it. That urgency is not a hidden cultural dogma, but a patent and proclaimed one. The Marxist analysis of history and society as the conflict between oppressors and oppressed is openly applied today to the so called "sexual minorities." The sexual minorities are the new victims who need to be restored, not only to legal acknowledgement but also to a so called, "fair" representation in society. According to this conception, only when society explicitly include these sexual minorities into their vistible structures, will justice be restored.
The critical predicament we have reached today is to believe that in order to be fair and compassionate towards people, we need to deny or neglect basic truths like the existence of universal human nature, sexual, gender and racial differences, etc. Love at the cost of truth cannot be love; just like truth at the cost of love is not truly truth.