Remember when "liberal" meant "tolerant" or "open-minded"?
Nowadays, the perpetually offended have decided they don't have to debate, and they're so convinced that their own intellectual flatulence doesn't stink, they don't even bother with critical thinking anymore.
Those who most sanctimoniously cry "tolerance" in the public square appear to have a zero-tolerance policy for anything other than their own propaganda.
This inconvenient truth has been on display during the NFL's annual scouting combine, which invites top college prospects to show off their skills in front of every pro football scout on the planet.
Careers are made and broken at this event every year, and given the underwhelming performance of a certain prospect from the University of Missouri, his draft status could be in jeopardy.
Except this isn't just any pro prospect. This is Michael Sam. The leftist media's latest contrived attempt to distract the American people from the daily failures of the president who they cover for daily. Mr. Sam generated headlines from shills and wannabes who just couldn't get enough of the first "openly gay football player."
Of course, these are the same people that have been trying to kill football the past two years because it's too dangerous. Now they can't wait to rally around the rainbow flag. And they wonder why their credibility is about as low as that of Congress.
Not to be outdone, a flailing president who seemingly has no time to give answers to the families of four dead Americans at Benghazi, or the millions he broke a promise to that they could keep their current health insurance if they liked it, couldn't wait to jump on Mr. Sam's bandwagon.
This is the same president who said if he had a son he wouldn't let him play a dangerous sport such as football. Mr. Obama cares about Mr. Sam so much he wants him to risk life and limb playing football. With friends like that, who needs fundamentalist Christians?
As the media fawned and genuflected to Mr. Sam simply because he's another star homosexual athlete, there was no time for serious questions about what this paradigm change means for the NFL or American culture at large. No time for debate. No time for a difference of opinion.
The left's favorite tactic when it can't win a debate is just to say the debate is over. However, if a debate is over, should there still be so many unanswered questions?
Questions such as: Presumably, we segregate men's and women's restrooms and shower facilities in most walks of life because it's uncomfortable doing the activities necessary in each venue with a member of the opposite sex present.
When someone says they are same-sex-attracted, why doesn't the same principle apply? If you don't mind your son showering after practice or a game with a same-sex-attracted male, then shouldn't it also be OK if your daughter showers afterward with males attracted to her?
If the answer is that other players should feel comfortable with Mr. Sam because he's still naturally a man, and I agree that he is, because gender comes from the Creator or natural selection and not by the outward expression of our desires, how does that not contradict all the left's LGBTQ propaganda here?
The propaganda says desire and behavior shape gender, thus someone can be "transgendered" or suffer from a confused "gender identity" depending on how they feel.
If Mr. Sam's gender is absolute, meaning he's still a man no matter who or what he's attracted to, that undermines the entire premise of this narrative. If Mr. Sam is still just another man, why is his sexual behavior with consenting adults any more news than the out-of-wedlock conquests of so many other players?
Are media personalities with a Christian worldview going to be allowed to speak about this subject with the same freedom as those that don't have one?
Is the NFL Network telling Kurt Warner what he can and cannot say? What does NBC plan on doing with Tony Dungy, who has always been a staunch supporter of traditional marriage? One sports blog dogged Mr. Dungy on Twitter last year to see if his views on this issue had evolved (translation: has he stopped being a Christian?), and was disappointed when they didn't get the answer they were hoping for. Will the left now argue the first black coach to win a Super Bowl is a bigot?
Doesn't the very liberal first lady of New York City prove this entire argument is a scam? The New York Daily News ran the headline "Bill de Blasio proud of his marriage with a former lesbian" in a profile of Chirlane McCray in December 2012.
How is someone a "former lesbian?" Isn't it once gay, always gay? Mrs. de Blasio also refuses to identify herself as bisexual. If she can suppress her same-sex desires in order to have a natural family, doesn't that undermine the argument we should alter public policy and shred the First Amendment to recognize people based solely on their behaviors?
Or does the leftist media and LGBTQ activists now want to call the first lady of New York City a liar and say she was never really gay?
If you're making the case we should undo the moral foundations of Western civilization and rewrite the Constitution to make way for your beliefs, shouldn't you have to answer these sorts of questions first?
Does the left have any answers to these sorts of questions other than name-calling? I assume the answer will be "no" once they start responding in the comments section to this column.
If the answer is no, then liberty-loving Americans should just say no to the left.
Steve Deace is a nationally syndicated talk-radio host and author of "Rules for Patriots: How Conservatives Can Win Again" (Post Hill Press, 2014).