On whether Christians should support "Gays Against Groomers"

 Recently, an alliance of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals have come out in opposition to what they see as the excesses and depravity of the transgender movement lobby, specifically, against the "grooming" by the transgender lobby of impressionable minors into getting body-altering drugs and surgery to become transgender themselves. Given said lobby advocates against parental consent and often want to separate children from proper supervision by their legal guardians to involve children in discussions of sexual activity and the permanent alteration of their minds and bodies with surgeries and hormones as an apparent panacea for the stresses and rigors of adolescence, this alliance of the LGB have come to view the transgender lobby as a threat and believes such things should be legally barred from anyone who is not a consenting adult or at least such activities should only take place with the active knowledge and participation of parents, with the parents having veto power over the transgender lobby if they so choose. Otherwise, this alliance as stated above considers the transgender lobby as "grooming" minors into unhealthy activities and exposing them to sexual activity, discussion, and imagery while still under the age of majority.

With this in mind, I have encountered some Christians on the fence about allying with the said group for political and moral reasons, fearing even an alliance against what they deem a shared evil would still be giving tacit approval to homosexuality, which runs counter to all standard Christian ethics and morality. Others would argue such an alliance, temporary as it may be, would still be of political and moral benefit to help roll back evils both sides can agree are beyond the pale.

Now, I consider myself a political moderate and this post is merely to examine the problem from both a secular and moral perspective, both to help Christians come to a better decision on this matter and for the non-Christians reading, hopefully, this will give you better insight into their evaluation of morals and ethics as regards real-world politics.

From a purely political and pragmatic viewpoint, I would see no reason such an alliance, temporary as it may be, would be a problem for either side. During World War II, Winston Churchill and the British people allied with the Soviet Union over their shared enemy of Nazi Germany. Churchill was an especially ardent foe of Communism, the official ideology of the Soviets, but remarked (and the below is a paraphrase of the essentials), on the pragmatic consideration for the alliance,

"If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."

Basically, Churchill knew such an alliance would be of limited scope and purpose, and afterward his nation and the Soviets would still agree on little, but the Nazis were such a threat a temporary alliance against their shared foe made more sense, even if only for the short-term, as long-term a Nazi victory was anathema to both sides.

However, Christians view such real-world political situations in moral terms, and thus wish to adhere their real-world politics to the ethics of the laws of God as established by the Bible, and below will give an example of the good and bad of such alliances with non-believers in God and under what situations this proved wise and unwise, to hopefully provide insight for those still considering the above mentioned real-life problems to come to a decision.

During the reign of King David and his son Solomon, a profitable and mutually beneficial alliance was struck with the state of Phoenecia. The Phoenicians were a primarily commercial culture established mostly in what would be modern-day Lebanon. During the reigns of David and Solomon, despite differences in their religions, culture, and politics, both forged an effective alliance based on trade and maritime commerce, particularly with King Hiram, as detailed in the Books of Samuel and Kings. Within the strict framework of trade, this was an alliance that served both sides well.

One of the best examples of this alliance panning out well for both sides was for the building of the Temple of the Lord, which David had wanted to build, but God refused to allow it, instead saying it would be David's successor who would do so. Thus, during the reign of Solomon, with the commercial assistance of Hiram, the Israelite people were able to acquire many of the key building materials needed for the Temple of the Lord, which included the famed "cedars of Lebanon", which were renowned for their excellence in building and construction.

Now, according to the Books of the Law, there were no formal prohibitions on an alliance with a foreign power, unless God specifically forbade it, like was commanded by God concerning the Canaanites, whom God insisted be wiped out during the military campaigns detailed in the Book of Joshua.

Otherwise, alliances were not formally forbidden, so long as said alliances did not supplant trust in the Lord nor did the alliance lead to the importation of any idols or worship of gods other than the Lord. Otherwise, any purely secular benefits such as pacts of non-aggression, right-of-way passage, and trade were in no way formally condemned. As seen above, such trade even proved beneficial in building one of the finest monuments to the glory of the Lord.

However, later in the Books of Kings, this Phoenecian alliance did not augur so well. King Ahab of Israel (as the Kingdom of David had fractured into the polities of Judah and Israel at this point) foolishly chose to cement an alliance with Phoenecia by marrying Jezebel, a daughter of the reigning king of that land.

Contrary to God's strict instruction to not let a foreign marriage lead oneself or others into sin and depravity, Ahab did nothing as his foreign wife imported idols and priests of Ba'al, and not only did he allow her to poison the people against the Will of God, he also allowed her to wage pogroms against the worshippers of the Lord, trying to wipe them out and establish Ba'al worship as the only state religion.

Now, later in life, Ahab repented of his sin, and Jezebel met an ignoble end for her crimes against the Lord and His followers, but this is when alliances with non-Christians turned into a curse as opposed to a blessing for both sides.

It's worth noting earlier on, during the reign of Solomon, King Hiram remained well aware of the laws and strictures of the Israelites and respectfully honored their moral limitations, rejecting an offer from Solomon to continue trade arrangements with Phoenecia in exchange for grants of towns and territory under Israelite dominion. Not only was the offer essentially scorned, but Hiram also called the lands offered the "lands of Cabul", essentially calling them pointless and worthless, as it was not the policy of Hiram's people to expand via conquest or demographic dominion, largely content to exist as the shopkeeper for other nations. It was also in contravention of the Books of the Law for Solomon to make this offer, as the Lord made clear no territory under Israelite dominion should ever be willingly ceded to a foreign power, especially not any lands from Canaan, which had explicitly been set aside as a communal inheritance for the people of Israel.

All the above said, for Christians on the fence about the decision mentioned in the lede, I have outlined Biblical precedent on the good and bad of alliances with non-believers, and under what limits such alliances could work and what excesses would cause more harm than good.

Regardless of which side of the divide you fall on, I merely hope that the above precedents and information provide better guidance for making decisions in accordance with God's Will. Also, regardless of whether my arguments on the merits and possible pitfalls were convincing, I advise my Christian brethren to not only consult with fellow believers on the wisdom of such decisions but that they also enter into prayer with the Lord for guidance, if only to make sure that the proper road to His Will is followed.