Get PJ Media on your Apple

Klavan On The Culture

How the Right Talks About Gays

February 3rd, 2014 - 5:43 am

shutterstock_34797865

I wanted to add a thought to an already thoughtful exchange between my friend Roger Simon and fellow PJ guy Bryan Preston, whom I don’t have the pleasure to know. Roger, a firm supporter of gay marriage, put forward the idea that the nation (as opposed to our reckless, corrupt and idiotic government) is becoming not more leftist or conservative, but more libertarian, more dedicated to individual freedom. Because of that, Roger argued, the only thing saving intrusive leftism from the death it so richly deserves is social conservatism — especially the right’s opposition to gay marriage which, to young people, is “a done deal”:

SoCons who continue to press this issue on the political (not the personal or religious) stage have to realize that they are damaging many of us who have other concerns domestic and foreign, many of which we would probably agree on more easily.

Bryan responded in a friendly but impassioned post:

Where do the surrenders end? Those who share the shut-up sentiment never say. They just tell social conservatives to shut up already and give up on the issues that for many are the very reason that they got into politics in the first place. So we surrender on marriage, then we give up on life, and pretty soon, they’ll be telling us to give up on the Second Amendment, then the First, then something else. Always retreat, ever surrender, because they say so, never offering a glimpse of what might be the end game.

This caught my attention because, while I’m far closer to Roger on this issue than to Bryan, I feel strongly that any move toward gay marriage needs to be accompanied by well-stated protections for religious conscience — yes, even though my own religious ideas are different. It should not be that a religious person or organization that holds homosexuality sinful should be forced to relate to gay couples in the same way they relate to straights. I don’t think Catholic adoption agencies should have to cater to gay couples, and I certainly don’t think a religious photographer should be forced to photograph a gay wedding. Please don’t leave comments comparing this to denying service to black people. Race is a nothing, an invented nonsense. Gay people commit acts that long tradition condemns. It’s a much different proposition.

Top Rated Comments   
"... I feel strongly that any move toward gay marriage needs to be accompanied by well-stated protections for religious conscience..." Well, there's the rub. The angry, bitter lavender mafia has no intention of abiding by "live and let live". It should be apparent to anyone paying attention that they are a malevolent force, out to foist their twisted morality on everyone else. The BSA is a perfect example. They can't just start their own version of the Boy Scouts that allows gays. No, they feel they have some right to shove their perverted agenda down that organization's throats. And do you think they'll stop there? I guarantee you every single traditional Judeo-Christian organization is squarely in their sights. For that reason alone, I am not willing to grant them even an inch, because they've demonstrated that the next step is to take a mile.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
> Either sex is an expression of love that involves the whole person (not just his body parts) or it is a purely mechanical operation.

Sex is not an expression of love. Not at all. Sex is an expression of sexual desire. Period. Men and women will "make love" with someone they hate, whether joyously or not, provided they're attracted.

Love is when you care enough about someone to hang around after the sex and deal with the consequences of sex. Love is when you are willing to be vilified when you explain to someone they are doing wrong. What passes for love these days is tolerance at best, indifference at worst.

Liberals have succeeded in detaching sex from love and marriage, and the libertarians were convinced.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
I take issue with the idea that, only through marriage, can one experience romantic love. Patently untrue, and I think you would agree with that (Romeo and Juliet?).

Here's my perspective; take it for what it's worth (which is not much - just one man's opinion): I don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms (as long as they're not hurting anyone). I believe that all of us will be judged, and that there is a Judge; I also know that I am not that Judge.

My "beef" with gay marriage is that the word "marriage" has long been defined as between one man and one woman. No legislature, no court (even the US Supreme Court), no man has the authority to change the definition of a word. If a particular word can be redefined because some group of people thinks it should be, then words have no meaning.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (236)
All Comments   (236)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Andrew, it seems to me the “Christian Community” or Conservatives need to realize that their beliefs on Gay Marriage/Homosexuality should be looked at from two viewpoints. First, I was raised Christian and believe today that there is a spiritual/mystical reason the union of opposites is advantageous for both parities from a sacred sexual sense vs. marriages of people of the same sex. And while it’s appropriate for me to have that opinion and belief, it is not appropriate to encourage civil laws to be written to enforce others to follow my lead. Many individuals, Christian and otherwise participate in drunkenness, adultery & fornication which the Bible says is explicitly wrong. It may be unwise to do such behavior, but many do it none the less. I may think that Gay Marriage is wrong or unwise from my point of view, but from a civil point of view, it should be allowed!
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
Andrew, I suppose you also support respect for all the "diversity" and multiculturalism in the USA.
For the sake of argument you say OK.

I had an apartment for three years in a section of Brooklyn populated by foreign-born peoples whose culture HONORS polygamy because its founder, the "perfect human being" had four wives (at a time). Now, if marriage isn't one man and one woman, how are you going to object to some people's view that one man and four religious wives is "perfect". Plus many of the families of my block imported teenage girl cousins or nieces, etc. from abroad to "wive" their teenage sons. Summer days were interesting: multiitudes of 20-something foreign-born wives who could not speak English, nor thier children, but all being wheeled to Ft. Hamilton Park - why don't you do some empirical research and check it out.

Particularly, pay attention to France where some French of north African descent are importing wives 2, 3, and 4, after getting a "civil" divorce from the prior wife, who is commanded by her relligious authority to disregard "illegitimate" French civil law and continue to be a "genuine" wife to her polygamist husband. I believe the young French-Algerian who murdered the Jewish teachers, parents and children in Toulouse, came from such a family.

If you haven't read Steve Coll's "The Bin Ladens, an Arabian Family", do so, to get a handle on how useful polygamy is in enforced tribal-type loyalty,money accumulatiion, and flying airplanes into New York skyscrapers.

In short, Andrew, if marriage is not one man and one woman, how can you stop it from being a tribal arrangement of such as Steven Coll Bin Laden senior had - 20 wives, but 4 at a time?
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
Andrew, I suppose you also support respect for all the "diversity" and multiculturalism in the USA.
For the sake of argument you say OK.

I had an apartment for three years in a section of Brooklyn populated by foreign-born peoples whose culture HONORS polygamy because its founder, the "perfect human being" had four wives (at a time). Now, if marriage isn't a man and a woman, how are you going to object to some people's view that one man and four wives is "perfect". Plus many of the families of my block imported teenage girl "wives" from abroad for their teenage sons.

So, in a welfare western country, YOU add it up, impoverished foreigners with four wives and 20 children, all on the taxpayers dime. Happening in France where French of north African descent are importing wives 2, 3, or 4, after getting a "civil" divorce from the prior wife, who is commanded by her relligious authority to disregard US civil law and continue to be a "genuine" wife to her polygamist husband.

If you haven't read Steve Coll's "The Bin Ladens, an Arabian Family", do so, to get a handle on how useful polygamy is in enforced tribal-type loyalty,money accumulatiion, and flying airplanes into New York skyscrapers.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
I am unimpressed with Mr. Klavan's argument. Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson spoke the blunt truth about the matter, but more typically social conservatives try not to insult and tip toe around gays when making the argument that traditional man-woman marriage is necessary to defend for a free society to endure. I think Mr. Kavan and others posting here need to spend time reading "What Is Marriage?", a book cited by Justice Samuel Alito in his DOMA dissent and cited by me in my posting under Mr. McCarthy's column here. Simon's position and McCarthy's position are simply not through.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
We already have the First Amendment, which is the guarantee of free speech, which was not a knock against one's faith, but a protection of it. And, it goes to point out that our society was a Judeo-Christian society when that was written. And, it still is for the most part.

History is full of broken promises for those that give in to their enemies. We already have the Constitution on our side. Let's defend it and uphold it, and it will defend us and uphold us.

The definition of marriage, or what marriage has been since the beginning, is a union between a man and a women. We don't need to trade the definition of marriage for "guarantees" or "promises", when we already have them in the Constitution.

10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Because of that, Roger argued, the only thing saving intrusive leftism from the death it so richly deserves is [] conservatism — especially the right’s opposition to [changing the legal definition of] marriage which, to young people, is “a done deal”:"

Nonsense. This is a conclusion searching for a justification. As a young person, I can tell you that I don't support creating a legal fiction that homosexual relationships are capable of being "marriages." It is also more of the same sophistry that pretends "social conservatism" is somehow different from Conservatism.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
The fact that someone of your age (whatever age that is) is willing to state the truth gives hope for the future of this country.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
Not a hater, would not discriminate or slander but don't like it, can understand religious objection, and personally just find it ewwww. Sorry
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
BTW MT Geoff, just because my words make you shake and feel crappy doesn't make them 'hate'. A powerful rebuke has the same effect, and that is just what I have delivered to you.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
@MT Geoff, Yes, you've labeled me a 'hater' although you have not actually provided a single reason for it. Calling me a 'hater' is a technique of rhetoric, not dialectic. Do you know the difference? If you were a dialectician you would show us how something I've said justifies *your* hatred of me.

That I have to believe that a certain behaviour is OK, and if I don't, I am a 'hater' is just circular logic.

Do you actually think you are fit to judge me? If you were the compassionate person you claim to be, you would want to 'save' me from 'the ugliness of my error', but instead you radiate that I disgust you.

I am trying to save marriage (it does not matter whether my mission is right or wrong here) against a lobby that tries to force people out of their jobs for saying stuff they don't want to hear. Trying to save marriage is a good cause, and that's completely independent of whether or not you think it needs saving, but merely using unwanted words is 'hatred' and 'disgusting' ('vulgar' you say as an excuse to avoid the topic). Meanwhile, trying to force people out of their jobs for unwanted speech is OK?

Actually pal, it's the other way around. Speaking unwanted words is an ancient tradition protected (it is supposed to be anyway). Trying to force people out of their jobs is hatred.

Are you able to comprehend that? It's the gay lobby that radiates hatred, not me. My words are tinged with anger, and are therefore unpleasant, but I have not said one single word that is not actually germane to the subject.

You are so mixed up you don't know inside out from right side up.

Come on, you wanted to cast your ugly label, 'hater', justify it. Have you got the guts to try?

The homosexual lobby began with the post modern theorist, Michel Foucault, in France. It is an entirely post modern theory. Here's a description of the essence of post modern theory: It entirely relies on the truth that there is no such thing as a fact about reality that cannot be doubted without inconsistency. You cannot be sure that your mother is your mother (as many shocked kids find out when they unexpectedly learn). You cannot be sure that when you walk down the sidewalk that your foot will not go through the sidewalk on your next step (induction is not a logical process but an act of faith, to think it is logical is to commit the error of the turkey in Bertrand Russell's Nassim Taleb's, 'parable of the turkey', originally Russell's 'parable of the chicken'). That's a very convenient truth when you wish to destroy society's conventions. Unfortunately, anyone with sufficient conviction about anything that they wish to use this fundamental truth to destroy conventions is a supremely dishonest person. An honest person would doubt his own convictions too and would be paralyzed with inaction. The whole of postmodern theory is nothing but pseudo sophisticated rhetoric which is used to attack society for the dishonest and inconsistent purpose of replacing its conventions with far more dubious conventions. Its entire purpose is revolutionary. It is actually a strand that developed from Marxism.

The same technique is used by every enemy of our society. The homosexual lobby, of which MT Geoff is a part, blazes the way for the rest. 'Islamophobia', the analog of 'homophobia', was dreamed up by Islamists who were directly inspired by the 'homophobia' lie in a word (see Orwell's 'newspeak' from '1984' - it's a lie, because fearing a movement which works at normalizing a disease spreading activity is not irrational). The critical race theorists, the feminists, the activist environmentalists, the aggressive atheists, you name it - every group trying to replace this once successful society's conventions with their own untried, or tried and failed fantasies, they all watch the homosexual lobby's path blazing efforts toward establishing a revolutionary end in place of a protective convention. None of it is honest, but if the homosexual lobby gets its flag, homosexual marriage, every other one of these malevolent groups will have seen how to accomplish its end. If we lose the homosexual marriage battle, which is a battle in which the anti-social group wishes to replace the common sense and socially essential meaning of marriage with the selfish, absurd, Orwellian, '2+2=5' meaning which this group promotes, we have lost the flag. If we lose this issue, we will be routed on all the rest. Don't doubt it.

Using the 'hate' label is one of the techniques of the anti-social groups. I deliberately walked into the 'you are a hater' guns, because those guns need to be spiked. How utterly absurd that a group that wishes to accomplish a revolution upon society should be able to shut people up by calling them haters and forcing them to apologize as was attempted with Phil Robertson. How utterly absurd that a group that fights to upset one of the foundations of Western Civilization, should be protected agains
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
You speak as if this is the left vs. the right. It's not. It's the center vs. the right. Or really the center vs. the social conservative part of the right.

Done. Deal.

If the republicans ever hope to see their man in the white house again they better let this issue go.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All