A cousin “comes out” and shares that she is now in a serious relationship with another woman. A coworker states his pronouns to show support for the transgender community. Your company sends out a Pride Month email celebrating LGBTQ+ employees. A pink-haired librarian finishes an inclusion display and hangs a colorful sign that says “ALL ARE WELCOME HERE.”
What would have been considered shocking only a few years ago is now the norm. Any and all sexual preferences, lifestyles, and identities are not only tolerated but celebrated. For many, this is nothing short of inspirational progress—maybe the single most important step forward for humanity—where all can be fully embraced for who they are without judgment. For many others, however, simply seeing the letters LGBTQ raises the blood pressure.
Now imagine an interaction between a conservative and that cousin, or coworker, or even the pink-haired librarian. Icy tension, darting scowls, expletives spewing forth, at least in one’s mind if not under one’s breath. This is what many imagine because this is the world we live in. There is anger, division, and confusion. Common ground between liberals and conservatives is all but extinct. And conversation is seemingly no longer possible.
Or is it? I have recently encountered some of these scenarios, but what ensued was not judgment or violence from either side but a respectful exchange from people with diametrically opposed views of sexuality. Calm, fruitful conversation is possible. Here are a few tips based on my recent experience.
Be real. Be raw. Be relational.
Constructive conversations could be had with total strangers, but oftentimes an established relationship is necessary to fruitfully explore virtually any topic, especially controversial ones. So first you should build real relationships. That is, you should truly care about and get to know other people, including those who have opposing views. It is part of life that people disagree with each other, and it is tragic that deep friendships between people who hold different views are increasingly rare today.
One way to begin to overcome this and to open up your heart to others is to share your story and invite others to share theirs. Relationship is built upon trust, and trust comes from being real and being vulnerable. Get beyond small talk covering only weekend plans and the weather and actually get to know people. If you wait for the other person to break the ice and go deep, you may very well only remain at the surface. When the time is right, don’t be afraid to take the first step, let your guard down, and invite someone into your story.
That time for me was earlier this year. I got real, sharing my spiritual journey with Eddie Trask, the host of Catholic ReCon, which involved divulging my struggle with deep-seated sexual sin within the first five minutes of the podcast. As difficult as it was for me to be so vulnerable (I was nervous that I would back out before it started), the response and support I have received has been overwhelming. There’s something about vulnerability that opens up hearts in a way that nothing else can, the heart of the giver and receiver. We crave authenticity because we crave something real, something raw and unedited, something that truly unites us together. There is nothing more real than your story and your own struggles. Find the right person, and share it. And open your heart to allow others to share theirs.
When we think of morality we often think of a list of “no’s.” This is unfortunate. Above all, morality is about happiness and goodness, and anything that is wrong and off-limits can only be correctly understood in light of its opposite virtue.
So as much as possible, we should share the positive view of authentic sexuality before critiquing contrary views. It is not a coincidence that my previous article was about St. John Paul II’s beautiful vision of human sexuality commonly known as Theology of the Body. In fact, my website is based upon the advice I’m giving here: start with sharing your story (home page), give a positive presentation of the faith (especially the gospel, my first article), then offer charitable but clear and hopefully persuasive critiques of contrary views. Start positive, and even while offering critiques, try to do so with grace without letting anger or frustration short-circuit the process of healthy dialogue.
This goes for any conversation but especially for a conversation as controversial as sexuality.
Spoiler alert: you are not going to change someone’s mind from a single conversation. I’m not saying it’s entirely impossible, but that cannot be your expectation entering any conversation. By having realistic expectations, you can remain calm, knowing that if a compelling point you are making seems not to be landing, that’s okay. The goal isn’t to change someone’s mind on the spot. And being too aggressive or growing quickly frustrated is only going to turn someone away, even if you’re right.
Instead, prepare for the conversation and think through possible objections. But maybe more than anything else, think of some questions to ask. Planting seeds requires receptive soil, and in order to plant a seed you need to be gentle, open, and allow time for the whole process to develop naturally. Leave your conversation partner with questions to think about so the seed has a chance to grow on its own timeline—not yours. Don’t expect immediate results unless you’re intent on sowing division. Trees don’t grow overnight, but weeds do.
Also, relax! Have you ever come away from an important conversation saying everything you wanted to say, having fully listened to every word of your dialogue partner, and responding perfectly in tone and content at every turn? Me neither. We are clumsy creatures and people get that. Don’t worry about making little mistakes. Be humble, listen with genuine interest, and good things can happen.
Here are some possible questions to ask to get the conversation started. The list starts with relationship building, then includes questions to pave the way to share the positive view of authentic sexuality, then ends with questions to broach the topic of LGBTQ+ issues specifically. Keep in mind these questions are designed to build upon an existing relationship, and the point isn’t to try to cover all these questions in a single conversation.
Ideally having a conversation about controversial issues like LGBTQ+ ideology would follow after there is an established relationship and mutual trust has been established. But that is not always possible, especially in a short period of time, and I believe the practical conversation tips I share below can be useful in a wide variety of contexts.
The overarching claim for LGBTQ+ ideology is that it is inclusive. So while there are many specific issues to navigate, I have found that it is important to address the claim of inclusivity first.
The LGBTQ+ agenda is inherently exclusive, not inclusive. The liberal sexual agenda endorses a particular set of views and excludes others. To show this is quite simple. All you have to do is ask a liberal friend this question: "Do you think the definition of marriage as a lifelong union between a man and a woman is correct?" The answer will be no. Then you can respond, "Okay, so we're in agreement on one thing. We both agree some views of sexuality are wrong and should be rejected." Wait for a cock of the head and an awkward pause while this is being digested (and likely rejected - see Objection #1 below). A conversation has now started.
Taking a different approach but getting to the same conclusion you could simply ask, “What is marriage?” A typical response from someone endorsing liberal views might be that marriage is a loving and deeply committed relationship between two consenting adults. The point here is not to dissect the offered definition and show why it is flawed. All you need to do is to point out that this is a definition, and by definition, it defines boundaries and excludes contrary views.
Marriage is _______. Gender is _______. Those supporting LGBTQ+ ideology take a stance on this and claim that other views (other definitions) are wrong. This is clearly true but it will likely be met with some resistance because this cuts against the whole notion that liberal sexuality is all about inclusivity. Here are three common objections and possible responses.
Objection #1 - But my view doesn’t reject other views, it is simply inclusive towards more views.
First, you can reiterate that this is simply false. For example, the definition of marriage as a life-long union between a man and a woman is claimed to be wrong. This definition is excluded and rejected in favor of a different definition. But more can be said to address the claim of inclusivity.
Sure we can all admit it’s more inclusive to say 2+2 equals 3, or 5, or 6, or anything else other than 4, but the problem is this excludes the one correct answer. Being more inclusive is clearly not always a good thing. If my little guy is eating spaghetti in his high chair and starts to shove a noodle up his nose or in his ear, my wife and I will try hard not to laugh, but as parents should we encourage and embrace his inclusive view towards eating? Or take something more serious: an eating disorder. To love those struggling with bulimia, do we need to endorse a more expansive view towards eating that includes vomiting after meals? This would be more inclusive, but obviously this would be unacceptable. Bulimia is an eating disorder, because it is harmful and contrary to what it means to eat. It goes against the purpose and definition of eating, which is natural, necessary, and good for us.
Expanding definitions breaks them and can cause real harm to real people. False definitions about sexuality are no exception. Real people are being hurt by “inclusive” (false) definitions about sexuality.
Objection #2 - Okay, so maybe I don't accept all views of sexuality as equal (your view is outdated, wrong, and narrow-minded), but we should be inclusive towards all people.
It is unclear what it means to be inclusive towards all people. Must we agree with every action, idea, and identity of people in order to be inclusive towards them? Does this mean merely tolerating a variety of lifestyles or affirming all lifestyles as good and equal? Should people with traditional views of sexuality be tolerated and accepted for who they are? It is not clear and you will get very different, contradictory, and sometimes even shocking answers.
A personal story will illustrate my cause for concern about the murky term "inclusivity" better than any logic ever could. In a corporate setting I once asked a presenter advocating for LGBTQ+ rights and encouraging us to reconsider our "gender assigned at birth" if we should be open and inclusive towards those who are unsure about the redefinition of marriage and gender. He was the hired "inclusivity" expert, and yet his response boiled down to a feeble "I don't know." This was the most unnerving thing anyone has ever said to me. What does that mean? I thought all are welcome here, no exceptions? When it comes to the radical advocates of LGBTQ+ rights, should I be worried about losing my job—or my life? This was several years ago, but in light of the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk, maybe I have now found the answer. And yet, I continue to earnestly pray for this very confused man.
So I would suggest, rather than speaking about inclusivity, which is prone to confusion and obscures the truth (based on my experience, I would argue this is intentional), we should instead be asking what is the most loving view and how we can best love all people. And the most loving view can be none other than the correct view, as true love, in order for it to be authentic and true, must be grounded in the truth, not falsehood or error—or confusion.
Objection #3 - But your view is judgmental.
Is it judgmental to hate drunk driving? To say that some action is immoral has nothing to do with judging others. We judge behavior all the time (we don’t give toddlers timeouts and send people to jail for being too kind), but that doesn’t necessarily entail judging people. We love children by correcting bad behavior. We reject drunk driving, not the drunk.
At this point, if it has not already come up, as a devout Catholic I would say wholeheartedly, “I believe all people are created with equal dignity and each and every person is deeply loved by God. There is no choice or lifestyle that nullifies the fact that everyone is made in the image and likeness of God and is created for deep, authentic love.” (This could also be an opportunity to share the gospel, which is simply a summary of and invitation to consider the depth of God’s love for each and every one of us.) “I love all people, and my views on marriage and gender have nothing to do with judging others but simply reflect what I believe to be true.”
Conversations are unpredictable and could go in many different directions. The point isn’t to try to craft a perfect script or to have a ready response for every possible objection. But with some specific ideas and questions to ask, my hope is to offer encouragement that you can do this. You can have a conversation on this topic and remain calm, kind, and even joyful.
The goal is simple: just get the conversation started and show that you truly care. If you fail here by not respecting the other person and aggressively stating your views, for many, nothing else matters, including the truth. You can’t have truth without love. And you don’t enter the human heart with a hammer but with gentle precision, with empathy, with a desire to heal even if it may be painful, and by showing, above all, that you have a heart too.
With prayer and a bit of preparation, there is hope that starting a gentle conversation about LGBTQ+ issues with these tips in mind may just allow a new relationship to be formed, strengthen an existing one, or perhaps be the impetus for an old one to begin healing. There is mutual respect, growth in understanding, and hopefully some life-giving truth lovingly delivered. This is a humble start, but it is truly something to celebrate.
