The conversation also reminded me of one of the supreme ironies of the contemporary politics of homosexuality. A movement originally built upon the idea of transgression, the breaking of taboos and the crossing of boundaries has become one of the most intolerant and conformist movements ever to emerge within liberal democratic societies. The current debate about marriage equality points to precisely this oddity.

Yesterday I found myself in conversation with a student who is currently studying at an august Ivy League institution. This individual is one of the university’s sportsmen who would probably acknowledge that, good as his grades at high school had been, he achieved his place because of physical prowess rather than academic application.

Recently, he had found himself labeled a homophobe, his crime being his refusal to wear a gay rights ribbon at some sporting fixture. As an intelligent person, he commented to me that sexual politics really had nothing to do with his ability at his chosen sport or his ability to relate as a decent human being to others on the team, regardless of their sexual orientation. Nevertheless, he was startled and somewhat distressed at having been labeled a homophobe even by his friends.

I know the family intimately and can vouch for the fact that this person was brought up to consider all human beings as, well, human beings and thus as individuals worthy of respect in their own right. His parents, conservative Christians, had been careful to make sure that their children never reduced people to labels and always treated others as they would wish to be treated themselves.

I told the lad that, when challenged to wear the ribbon, he should indicate that he respected the right of others to wear such as a gesture of solidarity with those they considered to be oppressed and to need a voice, and that he only asked in return that others respect his right to refuse to do so. I also told him that this argument would allow him to sleep at night with a good conscience but would not persuade those demanding that he conform. They would still regard him as a homophobe.Their approach was, after all, not that of classical liberalism, where one respects the right of another to be wrong; this is that of modern liberalism, where one is free only to conform to the dominant ideology. If the old Puritanism was the fear that somebody somewhere might be enjoying themselves, the new Puritanism is the fear that somebody somewhere might be holding a dissenting opinion.

The conversation also reminded me of one of the supreme ironies of the contemporary politics of homosexuality. A movement originally built upon the idea of transgression, the breaking of taboos and the crossing of boundaries has become one of the most intolerant and conformist movements ever to emerge within liberal democratic societies. The current debate about marriage equality points to precisely this oddity.

The ethic of self-creation that lies at the heart of modern sexual politics has become restrictive to the point of absurdity. One cannot even excel at a sport these days without having to sign up to the narrow ethical code demanded by those who hold the cultural whip hand. How quickly Nietzsche’s supermen have succumbed to a new slave morality.

Carl R Trueman is Professor of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. He has an MA in Classics from the University of Cambridge and a PhD in Church History from the University of Aberdeen. This article is reprinted from the Reformation 21 blog and is used with their permission.