Conservatives and Gay Marriage: A Guide for the Perplexed
Dear Belladonna Rogers,
My step-son, Tom, is a dedicated physician who spends his vacations providing free medical services to the poor, and is a devoted son and step-son. He’s planning to marry his same-sex partner in a ceremony in New York City in September. I want to accept his invitation, but my 71-year-old husband, his father, is opposed to gay marriage and refuses to attend. “Jim” is all riled up over this. He says that gay marriage is contrary to the teachings of all religions (we’re Protestants) and that it’s part of a gay political agenda. Although like Jim, I’m a conservative Republican, I disagree with him on gay marriage and disagree with his desire to boycott Tom’s wedding, where Tom’s younger sisters will be bridesmaids.
What can I do?
Conflicted in Kansas
Dear Conflicted,
Your letter raises three questions: (1) Why are Jim’s feelings so powerful that they’re overpowering his ability to show his love for his son by attending his wedding? (2) What are Jim’s arguments against gay marriage and what are some rebuttals? and (3) How can you get Jim to the wedding?
(1) Why is Jim so emotionally wrought up over homosexuality and gay marriage? You provided part of the answer by mentioning that Tom is Jim’s only son. When a son is born, his father often hopes that he will grow up to be, if not an exact replica of, then at least something like his father. It’s not for nothing that men enjoy hearing a son described as a “chip off the old block,” or that men name their sons “Jr.” “III,” and so on, all the way to Louis XVI.
Jim harbors powerful feelings toward his son because Tom performs sexual acts of which Jim disapproves. Jim’s reactions may be partly generational: his age cohort was raised to believe – as the American Psychiatric Association no longer does — that homosexuality was a psychiatric disorder and, for many, a sin against God and nature. Jim also belongs to two of the groups with the lowest levels of support for gay marriage. A Gallup Poll in May, 2011 found only 28 percent of Republicans favor it, compared with 69% of Democrats and 59% of independents. And while a 53% majority of all Americans approve of same-sex marriages, among 18-to-34-year-olds, support is 70%: that is, the older people are, the less they tend to support gay marriage. But as Texas Governor Rick Perry saw last week, even major Republican donors applauded when he said that gay marriage should be left up to each state to decide.
Another source of the intensity of Jim’s feelings is that for most people there is nothing more fraught with emotion than sexuality. This is highly emotional terrain for everyone. It is the part of our lives addressed by two of the Ten Commandments — a whopping 20 percent.
Although heterosexual marriages that take place in any of the 50 states and the District of Columbia are recognized by all other states under Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, the “Full Faith And Credit Clause,” gay marriages are exempt from this because of the 1996 bill signed into law by President Bill Clinton, the Defense of Marriage Act. Six states permit gay marriage: New York, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Iowa, as well as the District of Columbia and the Coquille Indian Tribe of Oregon.
States that have legalized gay marriage tend to have strong public support for it. A good discussion of the impact of opinion polling on gay marriage policy is here, in a 2009 article in the American Political Science Review, “Gay Rights: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness” by Jeffrey A. Lax and Justin H. Phillips.
(2) What are the conservative arguments against and in favor of gay marriage?
Opponents advance three major arguments:
(a) Tradition: Throughout history, most societies and religions stigmatized homosexuality and none has sanctioned marriage between members of the same sex.
While appeals to traditional wisdom are valid, they rarely settle an argument. After all, slavery has been a traditional part of all major civilizations. Yet this hardly amounts to a persuasive case for a return to slave-holding. Why, then, should “tradition” alone prevail with respect to homosexuality?
(b) It shouldn’t, which is why opponents then evoke the “slippery slope:” “If gay marriage is acceptable, why can’t I marry my dog?” they ask, “Or my sister, my daughter, or under legalized polygamy, all three?”
The libertarian UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who has extensively analyzed the slippery slope argument, discussed its workings in a 2003 article he wrote with David Newman, describing it vividly: “A frog that’s dropped into boiling water will jump out, but a frog that’s put into cold water which is gradually warmed supposedly won’t notice the temperature change — and will get cooked.”
In some areas this may be true, but not with gay marriage. The public will scarcely fail to notice, and to respond forcefully against, new proposals to change marriage laws even more dramatically than permitting gay marriages. The public, unlike the frog, will notice when the temperature is turned up. If human-animal, polygamous and bigamous marriages are proposed as the logical steps to follow the precedent of gay marriage, people will pay attention. They won’t “get cooked,” a self-serving New York Times op-ed on Sunday to the contrary notwithstanding.
All legislative enactments, public referenda, and judicial rulings that produce even minor changes are open to the criticism that each additional step could make later changes easier to enact. A law permitting gay marriage will not ipso facto lead to the passage of all imaginable laws permitting marriages between human beings and every conceivable other person or with animals, vegetables, or minerals. The way to avoid sliding down the slippery slope is to go no further: to draw the line where it has been drawn and to move the goal posts no further. This is not only possible, it is overwhelmingly likely. Changes in the law, as in life, are inevitable. Were they not, we’d be living under the laws and customs of 1776, complete with slave-owning, putting criminals in pillories, and corporal punishment in our public schools.
Another concern of opponents of gay marriage is that it’s only one part of an entire “gay agenda.” A recent example occurred on July 5, 2011, when, voting along party lines, the California legislature sent the governor a bill to make the state the first to require public schools to include the contributions of gays and lesbians [and the transgendered and people with disabilities] in social studies textbooks. On July 14, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed it into law. This is a perfect example of dysnomy (a great word, rarely used but frequently needed, meaning a bad law, from “dys”— Greek for “bad”— and “nomos,” Greek for law.)
There have been many more developments at the intersection of primary education and the gay agenda. As early as 1992, the New York Times reported, of New York City schools, “It was to be simply a guide to teaching first graders tolerance and respect for all. Instead, the Board of Education’s ‘Children of the Rainbow’ curriculum, with its teaching of respect and appreciation for gay and lesbian families, has become the latest battleground for liberals and conservatives in the city’s cultural wars.”
Here’s what I think: the purpose of teaching tolerance for gays and lesbians and their families in public schools should be just one element of teaching children not to bully or be mean to any other children because they appear, or are, different from the majority of children. Instead of teaching five- and six-year-olds about the intricacies of sexual orientation, wouldn’t it make more sense to teach children not to be mean or cruel to anyone else on any grounds, ever? That would cover not being mean to Ellen because she has two mommies, or to Tommy because he has two daddies, to Bruce because he prefers playing with dolls to playing ball, and not teasing Janet because her face is covered with freckles.
This needn’t be part of any one group’s agenda. It should be part of the entire society’s agenda to prevent harmful prejudice against all other children and all adults. Such a national agenda would benefit everyone.
(c) Opponents of gay marriage see it as an attack on the sanctity of the union between a man and a woman that, when legalized, will subvert marriage as we know it. If the law recognizes same-sex marriage as the legal equivalent of opposite-sex marriage, they say, then opposite-sex marriage will lose its unique place in the social and legal order. In this view, marriage is the bond that unites a man and a woman for the purpose of legal procreation.
This view stems, in turn, from the belief that the most sacred purpose of human life, and indeed the basic purpose of love, is the expression and perpetuation of that love through the act of procreation. The legally-sanctioned heterosexual marriage and the family that flows from it is thus the crucial building block of a civil society, the institution through which the mores and beliefs of the civilization are transmitted from one generation to the next. Absent a female mother and a male father, those who hold this view fear, the family itself will disintegrate and the transmission of all that is sacred and good in our families, in our communities, in our religions, and in our culture will die out.
Opponents of gay marriage also oppose gay couples raising children out of a concern for the example they set by their own behavior. They believe gay marriage will further harm an already weak institution: only 43 percent of American children are now being raised by two parents. At a time when the erosion of traditional child-rearing and family structure has placed intact two-parent families in a minority, a national tolerance for legal non-procreative unions sanctioned by the state is all the more unacceptable to foes of gay marriage.
Without the availability of gay marriage, the men or women who seek to benefit from gay marriage would not be married to a member of the opposite sex. A closeted existence for gays was the norm in recent centuries, including the 20th, and it didn’t have positive effects. By permitting gays and lesbians to marry, they, like their heterosexual counterparts, would be anchored in stable relationships. This would not only benefit them, but society at large.
The family structure in America is in trouble. There is, however, no evidence that gay marriage is a cause of, or indeed has anything whatsoever to do with the erosion of two-parent families.
The public policy argument in favor of same-sex marriage is the same as that in favor of opposite-sex marriage. It acts as a force for stability and monogamy against the biological impulses that lead to unproductive, time-wasting, and dangerous liaisons that end in mutual frustration, dissatisfaction, and, since the 1980s, the transmission of a life-threatening disease.
Marriage provides the same stability and grounding in a loving relationship for two men or two women that it offers a man and a woman. And to criticize the physical act of homosexual love as less purposeful than heterosexual marital sex because it can’t produce children ignores one major fact: the majority of sexual relations in Western heterosexual marriages don’t lead to procreation, either, because of the use of birth control.
To argue, further, that a child adopted by two loving, educated, productive members of society is not at least as fortunate as one placed for adoption in foster care without educated and loving parents is to disregard the realities of modern adoption.
Moreover, there’s no evidence that either adoptees raised by same-sex couples or in-vitro-fertilized babies born to gay couples turn out to be gay with any greater frequency than do children of heterosexual married couples. As anyone who has felt heterosexual impulses will readily attest, the power of heterosexuality will not be compromised when a heterosexual child is raised or taught by homosexuals. All children ultimately go their own ways. A little boy who likes little girls will like big girls when he’s a big boy, even if he was raised by two women or by two men. All the scientific evidence we have shows that people (and other mammals) do not choose their sexual orientation: between seven and 10 percent are born with a genetic predisposition to be homosexual. They are, in short, born that way. It is not a “lifestyle choice.”
If the sexual orientation of parents made any difference whatsoever in affecting the sexual proclivities of their offspring, then heterosexual parents would never have homosexual children.
Gay marriage will lead, and has already led where legal, to societal behavior similar to stable, law-abiding, community-supporting heterosexual life experiences — attendance at PTA meetings, service on community boards pertaining to child welfare in residential neighborhoods, and all the panoply of communal sources of anchoring and commitment open to heterosexual parents.
In terms of public policy, gay marriage, like heterosexual marriage and the mortgage deduction, is a legislative means by which desirable social goals are encouraged while simultaneously discouraging less socially-favored activities.
Although I am no fan of MSNBC, there is nothing I recommend more highly to an opponent of gay marriage than the following video from that network — from the beginning, if possible, but if not in its entirety, then beginning at 3.30 minutes: 
A final point: no amount of head-shaking disapproval is going to make gays and lesbians disappear from our midst as a society, from our colleagues at work, our circles of friends, or from within our own families.
(3) Getting Jim to Tom’s wedding:
If Jim holds to the arguments opposing gay marriage as strongly as you believe he does, I’d say the chances that you’ll have any luck persuading him to think otherwise are close to zero. You could, however, urge him to stand by the sinner even as he declines to condone what he deems to be the sin.
It’s often better to do that which is difficult now than to live with the remorse one feels later — and forever — after an act of omission. This wedding will take place only once. If Jim misses it, there’ll never be another chance for him to attend.
If you know a member of the clergy whom Jim trusts, I’d certainly try to enlist his or her pastoral aid.
If you find this topic too explosive to discuss with Jim — and why wouldn’t you? — you could write him a letter, saying why you plan to attend the wedding (if you do plan to go without Jim) and why you believe it’s important for him to be there, too. A letter can be a more peaceable means of communicating about a contentious issue than a tense conversation that can easily escalate into a shouting match.
I also urge Tom to write his father a letter, by which I mean a letter and not an email, expressing his love and admiration for his father, if true; he could also say what an inspiration his father has been in his life and give examples of Jim’s positive impact on him. In that context he could also write how important it is for him for his father to join him on this solemn and joyous occasion. He could also write that he will not construe his father’s presence as conferring his blessing on the marriage but rather as a show of solidarity and support for his son.
The Gospel According to Luke has some excellent advice, so I’ll close with it. The bolded portions may have particular relevance for Jim, and Tom might quote it if he decides to write to his father. If he does, his tone should be reasonable and, if possible, loving, rather than indignant, outraged, nagging, or whining. His letter would be an attempt to bridge a gap of one disagreement in the far greater interests of filial, paternal, and familial love.
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will give him a stone?
10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
—- Belladonna Rogers
Do you have questions? Belladonna Rogers has answers. Send your questions about politics, personal matters, or any other matter that’s on your mind and Belladonna will answer the most interesting ones. The names and email addresses of all advice-seekers will remain anonymous. Send your questions to: advice@pjmedia.com
Ms. Rogers has done a good job with this essay but, I write because I believe she has given too little weight to the tradition argument. Marriage is a tradition that is essentially universal among humans and predates civilization. It is equivalent to respectful treatment of the dead, in terms of how wide-spread the practice is and how old it is (anthropologists don’t actually know how old marriage is, very old is the best guess).
Marriage at its core is the proven method of creating the next generation of children who will grow into becoming useful, functional, and satisfied adults of the culture that raised them. All other purposes of marriage are of lesser, secondary importance to this essential function.
No culture that we know of has ever allowed two people of the same sex to marry because such a couple cannot perform this fundamental task. For modern states to allow two people of the same sex to marry is to step off into uncharted waters without any compelling reason.
Speaking for myself, I like and admire nearly all the homosexual men and women I have come into contact with over my many years on this planet. When they find partners that they love and live with, I am happy for them. I don’t regard homosexuality as evil or immoral but I absolutely do not agree that they should be allowed to marry. If the state wishes to create some new form of recognized relationship, call it “Civil Union” – I have no objection. If the state grants the same legal rights to “Civil Unions” as “Marriage” I won’t be thrilled but I will accept it (if it is, in fact, the will of the people). I will not complain if two people of the same sex register for such a “Civil Union”. But to take a word so filled with meaning at every conceivable level as marriage and redefine it so as to include two people of the same sex, this is utterly and completely wrong.
But it’s only a word, you say. Yes, it’s a word. It’s a word that means something deep and essential to human civilization. It has never meant the union of any two people who happen to love each other and it never should have that meaning.
If any of my children tell me that they are (a) homosexual and (b) going to get married I would not attend the wedding ceremony, though I love my children with all my heart. I would be happy to attend the reception afterwards (if they will have me) but I will never regard them as married unless they marry someone of the opposite sex.
I agree with you Annon and see marriage as a creation primarily for the protection of the Children, or we might say the Offspring, to be slightly more clinical. Probably Ms. Rogers is right that this latest cut of a thousand cuts against the traditional family is not the largest cause of the cultural erosion that the traditional family is now enduring — abortion for sex-selection purposes may be a more hurtful cut. Yet if any child or neice or nephew of mine invited me to their homosexual “marriage” (a celebration of their commitment to the regeneration of the Human Race? Does not compute for me) I would still go gladly, be wildly very happy for the loving couple and would keep my logical reservations to myself. Logically I agree with all you say Annon, but emotionally I go with the love the couples share for each other. They are so HAPPY!! How can you deny them their happiness, and on top of what they feel for each other, to be accepted by society at last!! Mazel Tov I say and I hope it lasts.
I am occasionally a reluctant divorce lawyer, and in that mode I do not see why a Gay Couple would load that stone on their back which, when it gains the weight of the world, is such a terrible weight to bear — i.e. the horror that comes from the thoughtless destruction of someone you once loved. I sure hate it as the agent, but I do love the love which I always saw in the generations of my family which came before me, which love still bears me forward in my own marriage now. As long as it is happy, the more’s the merrier, I say.
Thank you for this clear thinking and articulate and — persuasive piece. I often despair of finding opinions like this in places that I otherwise trust and read with a good deal of agreement as to basic principles – I mean places like this blog Pajamas. I would rather read Pajamas than see a Rachel Maddow show, but it gets tough sometimes since I often do find anti-gay marriage, or even anti-gay and lesbian views. I know other classic liberals and libertarians and conservatives certainly have other opinions — we do have Ted Olson fighting for gay marriage to name just one example, but I do think that perspective is outnumbered. So, thanks! This is an excellent article and a persuasive list of arguments.
I stopped when I got to the bit about freckles. What a red herring! Does the writer think we are all stupid?
Yes.
Or the writer is herself.
Actually, I found her article one of the most intelligently written on the subject I had seen. With all due respect, you may disagree with her, but accusing Ms. Rogers of stupidity reeks of projection.
Ah, ye olde “reeks of projection” gambit. The most stinging of all critiques of the psychobabble propagandist. Well, besides racist homophobe, of course. Let me put it simply enough for the “perplexed” to understand, gay marriage is wrong. If you can’t understand that natural marriage is a fundamental aspect of our culture and heritage and tradition then you are the definition of an intolerant revisionist bigot and your opinion is void.
I don’t know about the intelligence of Ms. Rogers, but I harbor doubts about the intelligence of anyone who believes kids have never been teased over having freckles.
Very well put………….
And congratulations to the couple.
“…his age cohort was raised to believe – as the American Psychiatric Association no longer does — that homosexuality was a psychiatric disorder…”
But what caused the APA to alter its opinion? The truth is, they changed their opinion for political reasons. Regardless of how we split hairs, homosexual behavior is not statistically the norm, hence it was viewed as “abnormal” behavior. Some might get chafed by this statement, but it is an apolitical reality.
One thing bothering me here is the subtle insinuation that Jim has a “problem”. Jim does not have a problem. His values are different from his son’s. The premise of the letter and subsequent response is that Jim is somehow wrong and needs to be shown his error which would miraculously alter his worldview.
Perhaps what has Jim “riled up” is the fact that he is expected to compromise his moral values for no other reason than Tom is his son. Framing homosexuality in a moral argument is without a doubt a very difficult thing and covers a vast grey area. But consider that Tom may well have the strength to commit to a gay marriage because of the steadfast example set by Jim. Asking Jim to bend now I think is a much greater tragedy for Tom than not having his father at the wedding. I’m sure some here will likely try to cut me down for respecting Jim’s stubbornness in adhering to what he thinks is right, but the fact is, no one can objectively say that he’s wrong either.
Also, when people use scripture to induce guilt based action so here’s what I think: A perfect man would be able to adhere to all those scriptures quoted here. But then, a perfect man would have no need for salvation through Christ either. Perfect men don’t exist. I could just as easily provide numerous scriptures on forgiveness which Tom should consider so lets remember the unsheathed biblical sword has two edges.
I believe you have hit the nail on the head. The article (and the debate in general) always imply the ‘Jims’ of the world are the ones with the problem. The implication is you should support your children in all their choices or risk alienation. Whether it is tattoos or Tibet you should say “how wonderful” and warm up the credit card for whatever comes into their heads. Love is required, support for something unhealthy or dangerous or sinful is not.
My suggestion: Jim should write Tom a note. He should tell him he loves him. He should tell him in no uncertain terms that he believes that this relationship is morally wrong and that it will, therefore, lead to his unhappiness. So it is because of love that he cannot support him in this matter. That however much he loves his son he loves his God more (and that goes for his wife as well). Ask that he respect his beliefs. With love, Father.
Leviticus 18:22 – You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 – If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
Romans 1:26-27 – For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
I Corinthians 6:9(NIV) – Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
I Timothy 1:8-11 (NASB) – “But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”
Jude 1:6-7 (NASB) – And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
If the God of the Bible exists He is not a deistic God. He is a God who “operates in the affairs of men”. He has placed parameters upon mankind. Man did not create marriage, God did. And God gets to write the rules for how HIS universe is governed. The problem in the West, from a religious standpoint is that Christianity has been hijacked by those who believe in the notion that MAN is essentially good and GOD is essentially bad. This is backwards. God is good and man is bad. So, when mankind commits sin or acts of evil or violence, the first instinct of man is to dismiss God’s law and His requirements and instead endorse the sin. And of course this ALWAYS has devastating consequences.
When homosexuals flagrantly thumb their noses at God and His Word, they are only delaying the inevitable fact that God will judge those who break His law. His judgment may come temporarily in the form of self-destructive behavior — God steps away and allows the consequences of sin to take effect, often to perilous conclusion — or eternally, when the Justice of God is administered at His throne and one’s soul is required of them.
The fact is the homosexual agenda can be likened to that of the cat and the mouse. When the cat is away, the mouse will play. In other words, in the absence of authority the lawless will run amok and flaunt their sin. But when the cat returns everything changes. Order is restored and judgment is executed. One can flaunt the law of nature and of nature’s God for so long before the consequences are felt.
Our Founders understood the consequences of a society devoid of moral direction:
“[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)
“Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.” – Fisher Ames, Framer of the First Amendment
(Source: Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.)
“Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.” – Charles Carroll of Carrollton, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
(Source: Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475. In a letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.)
“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” – Benjamin Franklin
(Source: James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I, pp. 450-452, June 28, 1787.)
Their are consequences to immoral behavior. There is no escaping that.
I’ve always objected to twisting the traditional definition and institution of marriage into an opposite. The essence of its meaning is man and woman coming together. That’s it. So why the problem not understanding many of us who want that institution to remain? Why impose yourselves and destroy it, or, recreate a new meaning? Just establish a lawful civil union and call it anything you want.
Frankly I’d rather the government get out of the marriage business and keep it solely a religious or secular ceremonial tradition. From there the partners can at will establish any binding legal issues.
Indeed, the government should get out of marriage. It should eliminate those tax breaks which amount to nothing more than special rights and which exist as a promotional tool for the straight agenda. The government should also stop granting divorces as they are another special right for heterosexuals.
Exactly! Those who are concerned about the sanctity of marriage should look at their own marriage license with disgust and burn it. The state and society has for too long demanded(through power of suggestion) that you render marriage unto Caesar instead of the Lord.
Bunk! I suppose you’ve never heard of the marriage penalty? How about dinks? Me and my husband were DINKS (double income no kids) and were the most put upon taxed people in the American tax code. Had we lived together in sin we would have come out like bandits. The US tax code is predicated on rewarding immorality and is disgusting!
Dear Lolly,
Greetings. You posted, “Me and my husband were DINKS (double income no kids) and were the most put upon taxed people in the American tax code. Had we lived together in sin we would have come out like bandits. The US tax code is predicated on rewarding immorality and is disgusting!”.
I disagree with your position that the tax code rewards immorality. The Tax Code rewards _business owners_ as that is what our economic system is based on. You and your husband have a choice — either pay a lot in taxes *OR* spend that money on improving your business (and your life style) and receive a lot of Business Expense write-offs.
If you want to learn how to legally, lawfully, and morally improve your life style, write to me as I’m running for the California Legislature! And, yes, I’m a Christian and I’m against “Homosexual marriage”. Why? This is allowed in Europe and it led to THREE women being allowed to marry and they became a “family”! You destroy the institution of marriage being between one man and one women, you will have turned plural marriage on its head.
This is a silly argument and Ann Coulter has a made a compelling argument against this position:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkBBiF10_NU
I agree with Rick Perry’s view that homosexual (there’s nothing “gay” about homosexuals in the ordinary language meaning of the word gay) marriage should be a state law matter – there are states where the people think it’s a good idea, and states where they don’t. (Although, I note that wherever homosexual marriage has been submitted to a referendum it has been rejected, including in California.)
That said, what in tarnation is a pro-homosexuality article like this doing on a conservative website? Why is the premise to persuade a man who is deeply opposed to homosexual marriage to attend a homosexual wedding? Why not to counsel those who are going to the wedding and who think it’s a swell thing how to accept that the man’s father is deeply and profoundly opposed to homosexual marriage and wants no part of it?
Tolerance has to work both ways: homosexuals and their fellow travelers must accept that they have not persuaded, and likely will not persuade, a very substantial part of the American people (a substantial majority in most places, and a substantial minority even in the places where it commands something close to majority support) that homosexual behavior, let alone homosexual marriage, is proper.
It’s reasonable for homosexuals to expect that those who do not approve of homosexuality tolerate them; not unreasonable for them to ask for (but not to expect) acceptance, but wholly unreasonable to demand approval. Unfortunately, that’s what homosexuals want. Nothing short of approval by the whole of society, including teaching in the schools that it’s perfectly ‘ok’ to be a homosexual.
Ms. Rogers is obviously a cheerleader for the homosexual agenda. That’s her right. But her attempts to force a sincere man to go against his deepest beliefs is both callow and intolerant – the very things she accuses the opponents of homosexual marriage of.
Because some of us have an “In for a penny, in for a pound” view towards small gov’t. This includes reducing or eliminating the marriage license office.
Aside from that, we’re Conservatives, we debate, THINK, and explore the issues in a rational manner. Lock-step is for Liberals.
Jim appears to be one of those parents that wanted a heterosexual child. Go figure.
Maybe Jim even wanted to have grandchildren one day.
(Clearly a totally alien notion. Where do such people come from?)
Belladonna Rogers has written what I consider to be the single best and most fair-minded discussion on this issue that I have ever read. It is simply beautiful, powerful and eloquent.. I wish, had she found the time, to take into consideration the arguments made by Andrew Sullivan in his cover story in last week’s Newsweek, as well as the arguments recently in the NRO symposium by Princeton’s Robert George and his various critics.
Again, I just wish to add my congratulations to PJM for adding such an excellent advice columnist to its roster.
Fair minded exactly how? In its implicit condemnation of Jim’s moral foundation? By suggesting that that Tom employ a scriptural guilt trip to coerce Jim into compromising his values?
Jim’s moral foundation?
What, pray tell, did Tom do to Jim?
“Jim’s moral foundation?”
Uh, yeah. That he was brought up and taught that homosexuality is wrong. Did you not read anything?
“What, pray tell, did Tom do to Jim?”
Please point to the phrase where I said Tom did something to Jim. You cannot because I did not. There is the part of the article where Belladonna hand picks a few biblical passages that are obviously meant to induce feelings of guilt. She then encourages Tome to use them in a letter to Jim. Again, try reading the article.
His wife appears to be one of those women who loves to attend weddings.
Belladonna, the scripture from Luke really doesn’t apply here. It is not judgmental not to want to participate in another person’s sin. No amount of trying to fit scripture to Tom’s father’s circumstance will change his heart. He needs to do what’s right for him.
The “slippery slope” arguments on this issue have always amazed and disturbed me. Those who employ it (and someone always, always does) must have some very, very dark fantasies. It must be sad to always look for the worst in people, as it’s always been my opinion that we all look for similarities to us in those we meet.
How on earth can we be against big, intrusive government yet insist that it be used as a club to enforce our world view instead of the Constitution? This and all of the other so called “social issues” are clearly tenth amendment items to be left either to the state or, preferably, to the individual.
IMHO, states should ONLY be involved in “unions” and religious organizations should only perform “marriages”.
These social issues are the lever the media will keep pushing to alienate the youth vote (generally more libertarian in outlook) from the conservative causes that really do matter; the budget, the debt, and defense.
The slippery slope arguement makes a lot of sense in a legal context (i.e. gay marriage as a right by court decision). Given that courts make law by building on prior decisions in a logical way, the reasoning used in such a decision can have a big impact on related issues down the line. If marriage is just a private matter, then why not allow polygamy? You can certainly argue that being “polyamorous” is just a much a biological issue as sexual orientation. And polygamy has strong historical and cultural roots (at least in some sections of the population).
I don’t think it is particularly “dark” to acknowledge that as a legitimate concern. And personally, given the history of polygamy and polygamous cultures, I absolutely support bigamy laws and a strong social sanction against polygamy. In a multi-cultural society it is sometimes necessary for the state to define and regulate certain institutions that could be left to “social” instutions to manage in a more homogenous society.
I can live with gay marriage in isolation – the actual number will be small, and as long as it is established through a political process the slippery slope doesn’t worry me much. I have no such faith that the logic that would lead a court to create a right to state-sanctioned same sex marriage wouldn’t also lead to decisions striking down bigamy laws.
Thanks for explaining that. I was always curious as to how a slippery slope regarding gay marriage could occur.
The slippery slope argument is entirely valid. I’d even say it’s irrefutable.
When we legalize “gay marriage” what we’re really doing is redefining a word. Throughout all of human history, a man could not marry another man any more easily than he could become a mother or a sister. All of these words have gender built right in and always have.
If you want to removed gender from the ancient, fundamental definition of the word marriage, the child-creation aspect of it gets removed as well. You’ve stripped it all the way down to “two people that really, really like each other.” And if you’re going to do that, please explain to me what it has to be just two people. Explain why they can’t be cousins or siblings or father and son. You can’t. Moral outrage? Umm, no — you’ve spent the last 5 years mocking people who are morally outraged at gay marriage, and beaten them down in several states. Now you’re going to rely on it to prevent future redefinitions? That’s absurd.
Frankly, I have no problem with gay marriage, but those who are actively promoting it really need to be more honest. Because it makes as much sense as male motherhood.
Most of this supposed advice misses the point, since it is really an argument about why society ought to support gay marriage. But the question is, should a man be expected to attend and celebrate the homosexual union of son?
Why go to a wedding? Because one is celebrating the physical and moral union of a man and woman who are pledging themselves to create a family. A son (in this case) will soon be having sexual relationships with a woman, in the hope (in a normal moral world) of having children, of passing along the name, the identity, and (we now know from science) the genetic information of the previous generations. The father hopes for the continuity of his being. (We now know from evolutionary psychology that the desire to pass on one’s genes is one of the fundamental forces of human nature.)
A homosexual union does none of that. From the standpoint of the father, it has no more significance than children playing dressup.
There is nothing to celebrate.
Great observation, David WLL! I’ll do my best to remember that.
David
A homosexual union does none of that.
Neither does a marriage between two 80 year old heterosexuals. That’s where this particular justification always fails.
If heterosexual marriage was restricted to 8o year olds, you might have a point. But it is not; and, no you don’t.
Not every doctor is a surgeon, but only a doctor can be a surgeon.
Not every veteran is awarded a Medal of Honor, but only a veteran can be awarded a Medal of Honor.
Not every heterosexual couple produces children, but only a heterosexual couple can produce children.
That 2 people past child bearing years can fulfill the secondary family function of caring for each other in the face of cruel world, seems to have been lost in your rush to equivocate young gay men choosing not to contribute to the future, with elder persons who no longer have that choice.
I doubt that their parents will be in attendance, though.
That may be but, the fact remains that 80 year old heterosexual couples are still biologically compatible, reproductive timing notwithstanding.
Thanks to the supportive comments. I would add this:
Remember, the issue is not gay marriage. So the hypothetical two 80-year old heterosexuals who want to marry is irrelevant. Rather, is a 71 year old father justified in not attending his homosexual son’s ritual of union with another homosexual?
Using the 80 year olds analogy is a fail. Stop using it. 80 years olds usually get married because they want to morally live together.
I wouldn’t go to the “wedding” either. I’m a 44 year old woman who once had very liberal leanings. But, as I matured and thought through the rationalizations of liberality, I realized I was going farther and farther away from God’s purpose. So I started fighting back, and controlling myself – doing what is right rather then what is desired. I think is okay for others to sin, as long as others don’t make YOU sin. The son has the right to sin, but no one has the right to condemn or judge the father for not wanting to make that same step.
JMHO
Thank you! I’m 52 and you’ve described my life. I think there are a lot of us out there!
Stop lying. There is no such thing as homosexual behavior in nature because it obviously has no reproductive value.
if there were a homosexual “gene,” then it would be eliminated through the process of natural selection.
Really? Did you know some people are born infertile? No reproductive value whatsoever — in fact homosexuals have more reproductive potential than these barren humans do. And they keep coming out, year after year.
So you’re saying homosexual behavior is a genetic abnormality? If a person is genetically disposed to be aggressive and violent, then society should put its stamp of approval on that behavior? Does the genetic pre-disposition of someone to engage in a behavior justify the behavior? If a behavior, such as homosexuality, has no benefit to society, should the institutions of that society encourage it?
Kind of creeped out at the phrase that if a behavior has no benefit to society…
Wow. Do you like bird watching? Stamp collecting? Boat sailing? Chocolate? I guess we’ll have to pass laws making sure those activities that have “no benefit to society” are squelched.
Also, violent behavior (a tendency that someone might be born with) hurts other people. “Gay” might offend you, but it hardly does violence to you.
It is amazing how often you miss the point.
Granted you’re right about behavior not needing to be a benefit to society and I agree with you on that. But this:
“Also, violent behavior (a tendency that someone might be born with) hurts other people. “Gay” might offend you, but it hardly does violence to you.”
He’s not talking whether or not it hurts others, he’s asking why homosexual predisposition is not the gay person’s “fault” but a person predisposed to violence is held to account when the too have no choice in their tendencies.
OH great wise one, I’m a dunce. Except there ARE accommodations made for cetain people who are born(?) violent but not held accountable for their actions. They can get locked up in a psych ward, but they are not executed.
I believe Ron Paul is right. If you are actively hurting someone (i.e. violence, theft etc) laws and consequences apply. Categorizing a highly personal matter of romantic partnership as requiring some kind of “consequences” or “being held to account” makes no sense.
Anonymous, you’re entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. Homosexuality in all mammal populations is between 7 and 10 percent. Sorry to break it to you, but it is that common among squirrels, dogs, cats, all simians, cattle and sheep, etc. Humans are no different in this respect. The links in the link that follows will take you to the scientific data, if you wish to learn more.
http://www.slate.com/id/2158877/
LOL! From the slate article:
“And a crucial part of [the gay ram] brains—the “sexually dimorphic nucleus”—looks more like a ewe’s than like a straight ram’s. Gay men have a similar brain resemblance to women.”
And how is this NOT “abnormal” again? So you’re agreeing that homosexual behavior is a manifestation of physical/mental abnormality, right?
Yes, just as red hair is an “abnormality” since it occurs in only 1-2% of the world’s population…or being unusually tall or short is an abnormality… or having a very high IQ is abnomral… or having naturally perfect teeth is abnormal…
Well, I don’t recall red heads, short/tall folks, those with a very high IQs or perfect teeth demanding special treatment because of those singular traits.
Homosexuals, who define themselves by their sexual acts (joyously demonstrated at any gay pride parade), do.
By the way, when the homosexuals manage to get themselves some children to raise in their more-loving-than-a-Christian-conservative- environment, will they and their children attend those gay pride parades? Would that be an event the whole family can enjoy?
Just curious.
“Special treatment” meaning… equal treatment under the law? Redheads are allowed to marry.
I didn’t answer your second question, Tatosian. You’ve obviously witnessed some goings-on at some kind of pride parade somewhere that you found repugnant. I’ve witnessed creepy suff at mardi gras, las vegas, the marijuana smoke-out, Woodstock… filth of the hetero kind. I take it that you’ve managed not to duplicate that in your own life. If I were to categorize all hetero people as “that,” I would be bigoted and close-minded.
So, back to the redheads. They are allowed to marry the person they love. Or maybe since they are a minority, we should call it a special privilege.
Um, one doesn’t get charged with a crime for calling a red head a carrot top, a tall guy big’un, a high IQ guy brainiac or whatever one might call someone with perfect teeth.
One does get charged with a crime for disparaging the homosexual. Right?
That’s special treatment, no?
What about homosexuals taking the kiddies to the gay pride parade so as to celebrate the lifestyle? Good family fun?
ummmm… I haven’t heard lately of a redhead being beaten nearly to death (as happened to the gay son of a friend of mine) coming out of a “redhead” bar in New York, or killed (as happened to a gay teenager in Montana) for having red hair. If a cultural outlook considers things like this acceptable (murdering and beating on gay people) maybe laws that protect this minority are wise and compassionate.
“Bails set for teens charged with hate crime in harassment at train station
July 08, 2011|By Jason Meisner | Tribune reporter
Hate crime and battery charges have been filed against three teens accused of hurling anti-gay insults at a man and threatening him with a knife in a confrontation that began in a bathroom at Chicago’s Millennium station.
Mack Heard, 17, and Kendrick L. Towner, 18, both of Richton Park, were ordered held in lieu of $50,000 bail each when they appeared today before Judge Maria Kuriakos Ciesil on a felony hate crime charge and a misdemeanor count of aggravated battery in a public place…”
No murder or physical attack here.
Soooo, a heterosexual guy in the same city gets pulled off his scooter and headstomped for his IPOD and that’s just a crime, but a poor homosexual gets called some names and threatened and it’s a hate crime?
Special treatment no?
sorry, here’s the link…
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-07-08/news/chi-3-arrested-after-harassment-aboard-south-shore-train-20110708_1_train-station-arrest-report-three-teens
Again…What about homosexuals taking the kiddies to the gay pride parade so as to celebrate the lifestyle? Good family fun?
I’m not continuing past this reply. You have NOT had friends (which I have – I’m quite old) bashed and beaten just for who they are. Every crime (robbery etc) that “regular” people are vulnerable to, gay people are as well. But on top of that, gay people are susceptible to threats, bullying, beatings, vandalism, and sometimes death just for being gay. Usually the folks who do this stuff start out with slurs, insults, and hurling derogatory comments before moving into the “good stuff” of violence. This is not imagination. It is real. My gay neighbors had their car vandalized. Twice. My friend’s gay son was in the hospital for more than a month and will carry the scars all his life.
Some people need protection. When it’s illegal to verbally attack and verbally “beat up” someone strictly due to being gay then physical violence is less likely as well.
Good idea. Run.
That’s your scientific evidence? One guy who draws conclusions about all mammals from one domesticated species? The 7-10% homosexuality rate in humans is way overstated–it’s really about 1-2%. See chapter 8 of “The Social Organization of Sexuality” (University of Chicago Press, 1994) for a thorough debunking of the 10% myth, which can be traced back to the perverted pseudo-scientist Kinsey.
Some scientists hypothesize that not reproducing but hunting and gathering food for siblings’ offspring guaranteed the survival of 25% of one’s own genes (as opposed to 50% through reproduction).
And speaking of natural selection, how about giving gay and gay-friendly people reasons to adopt fiscal conservatism? I’ve argued for Social Security privatization with folks by pointing out that Socialist Insecurity totally hoses same-sex couples. Lack of civil unions does the same, and who can blame same-sex couples doing retirement planning or estate planning, filing income taxes or trying to buy health insurance together for writing off all conservatives as inimical to their making and executing adult choices to care for each other?
Or, for that matter, from thinking that whole “there’s nothing ‘gay’ about homosexual life” thing marks one as a dinosaur … speaking of natural selection. I’ve heard folks sound very happy when they’re laughing at that.
Nice article. As another piece recently noted, the acceptance of gay marriage is not so much a cause of the deterioration of traditional marriage as it is a symptom, and that conservatives should be focusing their efforts on the government programs that truly are causing that deterioration.
However, a couple quibbles:
1. The boiling-frog argument IS perfectly valid. By gay marriage proponents’ logic–emotional fulfillment, benefits, etc–there are no boundaries to what COULD be considered valid territory for marriage, including pet rocks or what-have-you. That’s not to say that it all WILL happen, but that it’s now logically permissible.
2. The public policy arguments are not in fact the same. See: Civil unions vs. Marriage recognizance, and let’s also acknowledge that calling gay unions “marriage” is a cause celebre and not an actual public policy need. Personally, I’m in favor of other policies incentivizing couples to raise kids together instead of government dealing with the tricky religious, moral, and personal ground of modern marriage, but if we’re going to do it–let’s stick with the policy that fits the most folks. I’d also guess that the likelihood of gay couples adopting does not warrant codifying gay marriage. The vast, vast majority of hetero couples have or raise kids. Didn’t find any data on gay couples, but I’ll bet a quarter it’s much less.
Cheers!
“Gay Marriage” is a non-sequitor. Marriage, by definition – for the past 10,000 years or so, is a contract between a man and a woman. The woman agrees to give the man (usually exclusive) sexual access, and (usually) maintain the household; the man agrees to provide for and protect the woman and subsequent children. Homosexuals are quite free to marry – someone of the opposite sex, just like everybody else.
See http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.3836955/k.BEC6/Home.htm
and
http://www.ruthinstitute.org/index.html
if further debate is desired.
The whole “Gay Marriage” issue is predicated on two falsehoods:
1) that men and women are interchangeable, especially in child rearing. They are not; each has a distinct and different role to play in the process and two men or two women can not do as well as a husband and wife can.
2) that marriage is all about love and commitment. It’s not, in fact although love is highly desirable, it has never been required for a marriage – even a happy one. Love, in fact, usually follows the marriage, after 4 or 5 years, when the hormones have worn off. (For a good example, see “Fiddler on the Roof”). Marriage has a multitude of reasons; it is primarily about raising the next generation in the way that is best both for them and for society.
I agree with Kansas, but why can’t everyone have what they believe? I don’t agree with forcing church’s to perform ceremonies that they don’t want to and gays know where to go. The wedding business is going to be booming! Why wouldn’t a civilized society want everyone to believe in marriage, a commitment to God? All I know is God made us all, he knows every hair on our heads and he doesn’t create mistakes. I have one request, the gay gestapo needs to make up their minds what they want most, Democrat destruction or we all live together in some kind of harmony and prosperity!
I find it fascinating that you close your article by quoting scripture. Homosexual relationships are banned by The Almighty. The Bible is not a smorgasbord that you can pick this or not pick that. Either you accept the Bibles transmission of Divine guidance or you don’t. Simply because you may not understand why somethings are forbidden does not make them less forbidden.
Your post reflects truly what is most wrong with society- the twisted belief that judgement is wrong. In fact G-ds Laws demand the setting up of Courts of Law that require not only judgement but enforcement of laws.
You also ignore two other very important points- The first is that procreation not only produces new life but is transformative for those doing the procreating. It is a true joining with The Almighty in lifes most sacred event. It is the one way most human beings can get close to G-d. Secondly, it also changes perspective in that it it elevates a persons desire to see society as a whole improve. When we have children our desire to improve the world and make it better becomes a driving force in our lives. We have a real stake in a positive future.
Lastly you make the false claim that homosexual ” marriage ” results in less philandering. Why should it be so when heterosexual marriages don’t prevent it?
Finally, each and every human being is different. Each of us has the potential to do and become significant. Each of us is also the product of countless generations whose essence we carry. Perhaps the gentleman you spoke of is sorrowed by the fact that his sons sexual appetites have destined him to be the last of his kind, depriving him of the knowledge and comfort that part of him will go on after the end of his own days. Perhaps that is the most selfish act of all.
You make some very good points that I’m afraid most people aren’t thinking about. We are going from tolerating homosexual behavior to encouraging it, and I have yet to see anyone show how this will improve our society.
Also, by discounting the role of marriage in producing the next generation, “gay marriage” may be the cause of its own destruction. Generations from now, the further decline in birth rate of a society that encourages homosexual behavior will be out-bred by societies that do not tolerate it.
In the above comment – I meant the society will be out-bred, not the decline in birth rate. Sorry for the mangled grammar.
Are you a mole? You sound like a social engineering liberal (communist?) where “shared sacrifice” and THE SOCIETY is what counts. The minority percentage of a culture that are non-breeding individuals quite often raise orphans and adopt other people’s children. They don’t destroy anything.
My Dad did not come to my wedding 37 years ago because my wife is a Catholic. He had his reasons, his Dad was a Catholic and his mother a Hindu from India (or as the local csatholics put it ‘an unbaptized heathen.’)We respected Dad’s decision not to come but not his advice to call off the wedding. Instead we just got on with it and ignored him.
His childhood experiences was no excuse to be unreasonable or to go around predicting our marriage would not last three years because mixed marriages do not work. His parents were together 53 years, my wife and I have been married 37 years so he’s been proved wrong for almost a hundred years now.
Gay marriage is definitely part of an agenda, in the UK the coalition government have attracted criticism for stating they will remove the legal bar on gay weddings in church (civil partnerships are legal) but will not force churches to perform same sex marriages. The Labour party when they were in office werer ready to bow to the dark forces of political correctness and compel catholic, church of England, independent and evangelical churches to accept same sex marriage or face legal penalties. (Mosques were excepted – surprise!)
The politicized gays are up in arms about this, complaining they only want the same rights as everyone else. The fact is nobody has a right to be married in a church. I had to ungergo instruction from a catholic priest and give certain undertakings on top of the requirement that we were both baptized Christians, were not brother and sister (my wife was known to the church, I had to produce my birth certificate, were not married or bethrothed to anyone else and were both in full possession of our mental faculties and capable of consenting.
Quite a list.
I say let ‘Jim’ skip the wedding. Trying to force him to accept something his conscience finds repugnant will only cause more trouble in the long run.
Ms. Rogers omits the most compelling argument (for many) against homogamy: God has forbidden it.
If she must quote scripture, why only Luke? Let’s not forget Mark, Chapter 10:
Or Genesis 1:28: “And God blessed [Adam and Eve], and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.”
The institution of homogamy can NEVER naturally comply with those directives. Homogamy is perversion, an adulteration of the divine. Those who embrace and practice it inevitably fight against God.
A wonderfully written piece of sophistry! Each and every “argument” presented fall apart with a moment’s reflection.
Same-sex marriage is immoral. It is a perversion of marriage just as homosexuality is a perversion of sex. In fact, same-sex marriage is impossible because a real marriage requires both a husband(man) and a wife(woman).
Jim is correct for not wanting to attend. Leave him alone. He is to be applauded, as Tom is to be condemned.
That is called intellectual dishonesty.You have nothing to conunterargument?
To ban the argumented critics is the shame of PJ!
Doncha love it when people who don’t believe in God quote scripture at you?
Not to worry! Before long, we’ll have nice re-education camps, where recalcitrant parents, who don’t want to attend their child’s same sex wedding, can be sent, in order to teach them tolerance, and correct thinking. The rest of us all can all go and gape at the purty flowers, and lovely cake. Because a pretty ceremony is what marriage is all about, with bridesmaids, and everything.
(A question—since there is no “bride” in this ceremony, why are there bridesmaids? Cuz it looks purty, that’s why! And if you keep asking questions like that, it’s re-education camp for you!)
/Sarc.
Also, doncha love the way this Belladonna person doesn’t even know Jim, but feels free to anaylyze him (and very disparagingly) anyhow? Poor Jim, he’s the one with the problem. His wife, pastor, son and everybody else they can drag into this family drama must come, and bully, plead, cajole and pressure him, until he gives in, because his refusal is making them all so uncomfortable! And he can’t see his daughters in their pretty bridesmaids’ dresses! (Even though there’s no bride in evidene, here.) And, if Jim still doesn’t go along? Perhaps re-education camp would be best. . . or, call the tolerance police, to forcibly escort him to the wedding—and threaten him, if he refuses to look happy. That’ll teach Jim to be tolerant!
(Isn’t Belladonna a kind of poison?)
Although I think some valid points were made in the article, it is simply for the father to determine what he believes is right. Should he have to go a function that his son is having to celebrate any kind of sin? What if the son is hosting an “everyone get drunk celebration”? Or, “everyone fornicate celebration”? It is not a matter of judgment of the son, but rather a desire to not defile one’s self with promoting something he/she believes to be sin.
And, as Cato, #7, points out—why is a supposedly convervative blog cheerleading for gay marriage.
Maybe because not every conservative opposes gay marriage? Conservative does not equal Christian. It’s a big tent, get used to it.
Big Tent, is that another name for sewer?
When did anti-gay Christians decide they “own” the conservative movement?
Lockstep is for liberals. I’m Christian, attended a Christian college, passed out anti-gay tracts in my twenties. I’m now 60 years old and no longer believe the spoon-fed pulpit anti-homosexual bias. Do your research. I did. I read the original Greek and Hebrew. Read the translation variations. Studied interpretaion principles. Funny how phrases got translated into “homosexual” when it isn’t really there (male temple prostitute is more appropriate).
Also, lust is always condemed, including hetero lust. Love is not. “God is love. Anyone who lives in love, is of God.”
Oh, but of course gay people don’t/can’t love each other. Because they’re wierd.
MTNCOUGAR
That is quite the bomb you are throwing, that what you wrote is a “better” translation than every version of the Bible, translated into English.
I doubt very much that your version is correct, but for the sake of argument, I will cede those verses.
What about the litany of verses that mention people being damned for “burning in their lust” for those of the same gender? Or how about the verse that very explicitly says men shall not lie with men, women shall not lie with women. How does YOUR translation read??
Sigh. One last comment to the brain-challenged. I DO NOT READ TRANSLATIONS. I study them. I studied the original languages, I studied interpretation principles, I studied carefully and for many years – because IT SEEMED REASONABLE that if we are going to condemn a group of individuals “to hell” or uphold laws that limit a minority group’s rights and freedoms then we should know – seriously know – what “God said” about this group. And not just be spoon-fed the same kind of brainless idiocy where scripture was quoted to justify keeping women barefoot and pregnant or a host of other crap – slavery included.
I’m not going to try to do your homework for you.
Nor are you going to refute my argument, apparently.
I could refute your arguments for hours. Do your own homework. But first study ancient Hebrew and Greek (not Aramaic since that was not the language used for these writings). Then study – especially in Hebrew – the varieties of credible interpretations possible for many words – and next study the Latin translations as well as the German (done long before the English version was even attempted, and closer to the original context). Maybe then it will be worth having a legitimate conversation with you.
Get the government out of the marriage business. Secondly, reform the tax, benefit, and inheritance laws so that people are treated equally as individuals.
i have little problem with “gay” civil unions; just dont call it marriage because it isn’t
what is so hard for the gay-marriage advocates to understand this?
Why is it so hard for non-gay people to understand that IT IS A MARRIAGE. And that civil unions do NOT provide the same legal protections that a marriage does. My neighbors next door are gay, in love, bonded, committed, upstanding, fine people. They are more “married” than most of my non-gay friends. It stinks to call it a civil union, even if they could get one in this state.
Insisting on calling gay marriages “civil unions” is just another way to exercise the principle of “separate but equal.” Gays don’t appreciate that, & I don’t blame them.
Guide to arguments you must defeat
What is perplexing is the placement of this article in PM when it might have been perfect for Huffington Post or some like minded venue. I now feel unperplexed and have arrived at a different take: Belladonna Rogers makes the strongest possible case for homo”sex”ual “marriage” so we can see how easy it is to refute. If this is all they have, then it is indeed child’s play to win the debate. So this “Guide to arguments you must defeat” is a useful contribution.
It is the best collection of arguments for homo”sex”ual “marriage” I have seen. The presentation comes to us in a calm, reasoned tone. But the arguments are individually, and taken as an ensemble, wrongheaded; each has been refuted forcefully and frequently. Each specific point is a victim of false or inapplicable facts and weak reasoning. Other comments correctly indicate that the use of scripture is misguided. Yet no alternative is presented as worthy of consideration.
On first reading, I considered it surprisingly one-sided in favor of evil, the first such article I have seen at PM. But I think the true purpose here is to encourage opponents of this form of “marriage”. It has no real justification whatsoever. Thus we should be fearless in opposing it.
You are so right. Same sex marrige has no basis among a civilization based on rational thought.
so who is moderating this forum. I have been policed out 4 times for making a point that 1% of the population is dictating public policy with marriage and hate speech laws. This is totally on topic and important to think about. the government is a convenient way for a deviant minority to impose its dominion over the rest of us.
The father in this instance would be affirming a falsehood-that the “union” of a man and a man is a “marriage.” Gays excel at camp. These marriages are of a piece. Lets say his son was 40 and was going to marry a 13 year old girl in a State that allowed it? Does he have to attend? What if the father did not want to attend the marriage of his son to a woman so that she get her green card? It would be a legal marriage but also a fraud. What if his son became a Muslim moved to Egypt and asked him to the marriage of his second wife? Would he have to attend that too or be subjected to biblical arguments from people who obviously think they are a joke? This piece partakes of the by now tiresome liberal condecension to anybody who is not willing to jettison what is right to what liberals consider the behavior of the moment. Homosexual behavior and its societal normalization is now the holy of holies for liberals-surpassing even abortion I think. Its all wrong. But there we are.
1. ALL government “marriages” are civil unions. A Justice of the Peace does not administer a Sacrament.
2. Cultists are not amenable to reason on issues on which the cult gives decrees.
3. There are a great many Manichaeans masquerading as Christians. If Creation disagrees with a holy book that punishes homosexual gang-rape in one instance and encourages heterosexual incest and gang-rape in another, then obviously Creation is wrong.
3. Perhaps the crux of the issue is that if the author is concerned about her step-son’s feelings, and her husband is concerned with his moral status, the problem is that she’s married to the wrong man.
“1. ALL government “marriages” are civil unions. A Justice of the Peace does not administer a Sacrament.”
Mathew 22:21 anybody?
Is this a parody? The condescension, the assumption that Jim has a “problem” that must be addressed (why not Conflicted in Kansas, who apparently has so little respect for her husband’s deeply held convictions that she seeks advice on how to get him to betray his principles to her satisfaction?)
A balanced article would include, oh, I don’t know, maybe some actual ARGUMENTS from opponents of same sex marriage — rather than a quick derisive summary followed by Excitable Andy Sullivan’s ill-sourced ‘response’ to the bowdlerized version.
You know, arguments like these:
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/SenateSept42003.pdf
And…about that “pay no attention to the slippery slope behind the curtain” dismissal: did Belladonna miss this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/us/12polygamy.html
After all, it was in her favorite newspaper (if this article wasn’t just a parady, how did she end up writing HERE?)
Liberal, blah, blah, blah.
P.S. It is same sex marriage, not gay marriage. Gay, i.e. predominantly homosexual people, get married all the time, everywhere, and now and in the past. It is single sex marriage that is the innovation.
Walter makes a very important point here–perhaps the most important one in the whole debate. There is and has never been any prohibition against gays getting married–and in fact, many have done so, and raised families. What is new is that folks are turning “marriage” into a vehicle of ostensible (and trivial) personal emotional fulfillment instead of the social foundation that it is.
So not only is Jim’s religious belief trivialized, the author decides to play Satan and quote Scripture out of context. There is no justification for gay marriage in the Christian or Jewish tradition and it’s a falsehood to suggest otherwise. Even when it was tolerated, it was considered a sin.
Christ also said that He would turn fathers against sons for His Kingdoms sake. Jim might take his faith so seriously that he doesn’t want to sell that out.
One thing missing from Belladonna’s article is the authority of Scripture. I have no respect for tradition, but the Word of God stands above the laws of my country (Canada) and yours. It’s all about humanity and how we can solve all our own problems isn’t it? But it isn’t and we can’t.
If the Word of God were in support of Gay marriage then I would be also, but it isn’t. I know the new versions have been doctored to imply God’s acceptance of gay marriage, but the Authorized version does not, and cannot be made to do so.
Something else I find interesting is the treatment of Sodom and Gomorrah in Scripture. Did you know that there is no evidence that gay marriage was allowed in those towns? Even Lot’s daughters were married to men there! In our arrogance, the western world has gone beyond even Sodom and Gomorrah! It won’t be long now! God’s judgment is looming on the horizon! Just because it hasn’t happened yet, don’t believe He will hold-off forever!
I too am dismayed that a “conservative” website is pulling out the pom-poms for gay marriage. But I’m not surprised considering that the letter writer and the author of this piece are of the fairer sex. I see it constantly with so-called conservative women. Many are reluctant to pass judgement or condemn the advance of the homosexual agenda for reasons I cannot deduce. Is it because the of the hurt feelings sure to result from society drawing the line in a place that limits gay behavior or expression? Possibly. Whatever the reason, on this issue and several others, conservatives need to battle progressives AND the socially liberal “conservatives”.
I see a smattering of flowery comments about this article. Those posters and the author pay little attention to the profound re-ordering of society gay marriage entails. Society once had a standard for sexual behavior: a lifetime of monogamous heterosexual marriage. Of course, few actually lived up to that standard for various reasons. But that remained the standard nonetheless and a majority of Americans at least embarked on the goal. That is no longer the case as people marry later, or not at all, and divorce more often. What is that standard now in New York, Massachusetts, etc? I submit that there is no standard in those places and the lack of one will become painfully evident in about 20 years as a generation of children, steeped in this new societal order, come of age.
The author also makes an unforgivable factual error. Children raised by homosexuals ARE more likely to engage in homosexual behavior and eschew traditional gender roles. Of course, that just makes sense. If you’re brought up in a household where same-sex, non-traditional behavior is the norm you’re less likely to see it as problematic. Notice how the writer in the linked article goes out of her way to put a positive spin on the non-traditional behavior of the children in the study.
http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/6908.html
I don’t know the woman’s husband, Tom. But I, like him, would never attend or support a gay marriage ceremony. It is a celebration of death and an affront to our very humanity. Gay marriage, unlike a real marriage, is not life-affirming. On the contrary, it’s life-rejecting. Have you seen the birth stats from two of the most gay-friendly cities in the country? San Francisco county birth rates are only 60% of the national average and they’re projected to drop another 23% by 2019. In New York, 41% of all pregnancies end in abortion. Four out of every ten pregnancies are terminated – to say nothing of the declining rates of real marriage. These two cities are on an express train to social oblivion and bestowing government’s seal of approval on gay behavior will only mash the accelerator.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704156304576003483797192372.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/nyers_twice_as_likely_to_abort_7FdirErI7D0oMMRmGMYIDP#comments_block
Finally, there is a word that comes to mind when someone bastardizes a scripture in order promote something that the Bible stands steadfastly against. The word is “evil”.
Maybe conservative doesn’t mean what you think it means? Maybe your views aren’t the only ones allowed in the door? I’m not a woman and I have no problem with this. I’m more concerned with the constitution than the Bible. I recognise the wisdom inherent in both but when it comes to structuring a free society the constitution wins hands down and it’s pretty clear to me that it says it’s none of my business who marries who. Conservative does not mean christian, whether you want it to or not.
Yaaay! Thanks for speaking out. I agree wholeheartedly.
Someone please explain to me why it is that being gay is acceptable, even encouraged by media, academia, and segments of the political class, while at the same time being attracted to say a 15 year old girl or maybe a Shetland pony is aberrant behavior. The claim that you were born that way could be applied to any of them. In fact of the three, the attraction to 14 and 15 year olds is the least aberrant of the lot.
I don’t care what consenting adults do with each other in private. But I don’t like it shoved down my throat and I don’t like it implied or stated outright that there’s something wrong with me for not accepting their “lifestyle”
Those trumpeting a genetic basis for homosexuality had best hope it’s never confirmed. Because if it is, the widespread availability of home genetic testing and abortion on demand will speed up natural selection rather quickly.
This blog post is an argument from emotion and has little factual basis. Just a few examples:
1) The author argues that the public would suddenly put its foot down if legalized polygamy was ever proposed, yet only 20 years or so ago, conservatives who said gays would soon be demanding marriage rights were denounced as fearmongers. There is, indeed, a slippery slope.
2) Even if the public draws the line at gay marriage, there will be no legal basis left for the courts to deny marriage rights to multi-partner arrangements. In case you haven’t noticed, it’s the courts that first imposed this radical change on our society. So whether the public wants it or not, that’s what will happen.
3) Gays — “married” or not — by and large reject monogamy, so the idea that marriage will stabilize them is wishful thinking.
4) If you want to know what SSM will mean to marriage, look what it’s already done in Scandinavia.
5) By all means, read this take from Megan McArdle, a non-socially conservative libertarian: http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html
“Jim” is absolutely correct. I hate it for him that he has to go through this pain, but giving in and going against his conscience would be the wrong thing to do.
I was pleased to see such a wise and human essay on this site. It reminded me of Barry Goldwater style conservative views.
I regret that I then scrolled down and read some of the hate-filled bigotry in the comments.
Yep, anyone who disagrees with you is a hater. Nice way to slime those on the other side without having to address their arguments. So who, exactly, is the hater?
Sigh. Couldn’t let this go unchallenged. YOU obviously are a hater if you can read all the bigoted, biased comments made here and think it’s just normal.
At 70, Jim is entitled to do whatever he darn well wishes to do without being second-guessed by his wife and know-it-all pundits on the internet. He also deserves better than to have someone who has never even met him psychologically dissect him on the internet and ascribe comically simplistic motives to him. Maybe his son Tom, the archangel of free medical service to the poor, has been an ungrateful twerp who made a career of making his father miserable. Maybe he’s just a detestable little puke. Maybe this isn’t a Dr Phil moment. And maybe you, BR, have no idea what the current water temperature is.
Are there only two choices? Chasing gays down the street with baseball bats, or absolute and total equivalence in every consideration?
The author quotes the earlier APA attitude, but the author fails to note that the APA definition of “normal” was (1) reproduces, and (2) is a net economic positive. Seems perfectly reasonable, the society grows and prospers, until the politics of gay rights is allowed to control the “reasoning”.
If 90% of the population was homosexual and 10% hetero, instead of the reverse that we see, the population would cease to exist in a generation. This is not a “normal” or “healthy” condition. In relatively small percentages, it has no profound effect. In relatively large percentages, it devastates the society.
I saw nothing in the sad lady’s letter that suggested that her husband wanted to beat their son with a baseball bat. Just because her husband did not wish to grant total equivalence doesn’t imply a fault on his part.
While I understand and sympathize with the sentiments of this columnist, Commenter #5 is right – for those with moral objections, attending such a ceremony would be participating or endorsing sin. We don’t get to choose sins – God chooses what they are. And while we are all sinners, we do have an obligation not to endorse sinful behavior. When Jesus said “let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” he was making the point that we are all sinners. But that did not mean that he endorsed the adulteress’ behavior – people forget that at the end of that passage, Jesus tells the woman “Go, and sin no more.” Those who are getting gay “married” are not planning to sin no more – in fact, they are planning to purposely continue sinning “until death do us part.” To be forgiven from sin requires repentance. And while repentance does not demand perfection, it DOES demand that you not purposely commit yourself to permanently sinning. It’s the same reason that more conservative churches don’t ordain practicing homosexuals – for a clergyman to say “I am just going to keep on indulging in this sin whether you or the Bible likes it or not” is the opposite of what any Christian should be doing.
the author would be well advised to actually pay attention to current events and the trajectory of the whole gay rights debate before glibly declaring that gay marriage will not lead to further redefinition of marriage. For example, she specifically writes that gay marriage will not lead to the legalization of polygamy. Yet the family from Sister Wives is already suing to overturn Utah’s ban on polygamy and is specifically citing the gay rights decision in Lawrence V. Texas in their argument. Assuming the premises of Lawrence v. Texas, they would appear to have a strong case (certainly stronger than Ted Olson’s argument for a positive right to stste recognition of gay marriage).
Every time such topics come up, the proponents of gay rights assure us that there is no slippery slope. When California debated civil unions, we were assured they would not lead to gay marriage. Yet now gay marriage is where the debate is at. When we debated prop 8, we were assured that gay marriage etc would not be in school curriculums, yet just ove a year later, gay rights are in the school curriculum all the way down to grade school. The proponents of gay marriage assure us the will be no legalization of polygamy, but there is already a lawsuit to force that. It’s about time people stopped peddling the line that the slope is not slippery. It clearly is.
Nobody seems to have pointed out that the people who attend a wedding are in fact participants in the ceremony – there is no way for Jim to attend without actively participating and implicitly giving his approval, unless he were to speak up at the point in the ceremony where the officiant asks if anyone knows any reason why the two persons cannot be married. Considering that the officiant obviously approves of gay marriage, refusing to approve of the “marriage” in that manner would be both pointless and cruel. So Jim’s only option is to NOT attend the ceremony. He may wish his son happiness, but there is no way for him to be true to his moral beliefs and simultaneously attend this “wedding”.
Very, VERY good point.
the ‘give those people civil unions but don’t call it marriage’ is semantic nonsense. ALL marriages are ‘civil unions’ since a marriage license is issued by the state, not the vatican. a religious ceremony is not required to be legally married. when a couple is married by a justice of the peace we do not say they are civilly unioned, we say that they are married. this is the case regardless of the gender of those legalizing their union. nothing has been ‘re-defined’…the definition is the same.
the mother asking for help in this article is concerned that her husband is going to miss an important event in their son’s life. she is not asking how she can force a so-called ‘gay agenda’ on her husband, she wants her son to know that he is loved by his parents and that they want him to be happy and fulfilled in his own life. the response by the writer of this article is simply attempting to point out possible paths the wife might follow to soften her husband’s heart and put his mind at ease. how any parent could turn their backs on their children, much less condemn them for nothing more than loving another person is a concept that does not fit into my own understanding of morality. the father here certainly has every right to his own stance, but he ought to understand that he will be harming his relationship with his wife and his son by his public act of abandonment and what sort of ‘family values’ is that?
my best wishes to the happy couple and may their union set an example, for those who would who would dismiss their joy out-of-hand, that love and commitment are reasons for celebration, not condemnation.
“…between seven and 10 percent are born with a genetic predisposition to be homosexual.They are, in short, born that way. It is not a “lifestyle choice.””
Ummm, not that I’m a big fan of these “genetic” arguments for control of behavior (what, again, is the protein being coded for?) but if we’re going that route, why is this statement not equally true:
“..between seven and 10 percent are born with a genetic predisposition to be averse to homosexuality. They are, in short, born that way. It is not a “lifestyle choice.””
Thus is the slippery slope of genetic determinationalism…
I say closer to 80% than 10%, but that’s just me. Why else would you have to tolerate it if you did not find it offensive.
A lot have said it already, but I will repeat. This article didn’t address the personal decision to not go to the homosexual wedding if one has strong convictions against it.
I do not believe the son should write a letter. He should meet with the father personally to discuss the issue. As a physician, he should have the money to make the special trip. He should bring his partner as well to meet at a different time. Even if his parents didn’t go to the wedding, the father would know who they are. The son should keep the door open even if the father shut the door. Relationships should not be all or nothing.
With this, the author, Belladonna, is extremely dismissive of religious convictions to the point where I think she’s an advocate. It is possible to be conservative and on the neutral side, which is Rick Perry’s position that all states can decide on this issue. I do think there is a slippery slope. There’s a court case on polygamy… look it up.
Belladonna Rodgers is no longer a “close observer of international and domestic affairs” but has taken on, instead, the mantle of spokesperson for silly, selfish behavior, purveyor of specious science and crusader against Christian morality, all in the spirit of Rodney King… “Can’t we all just get along?”
Some things, Belladonna dear, are worth fighting for. The building block of Western Civilization is one.
“The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.” GK Chesterton
“Some things, Belladonna dear, are worth fighting for. The building block of Western Civilization is one.”
I suppose that depends on what your definition of the “building blocks of Western Civilization” are. For some of us they are tolerance of the other.
I am curious, please: how has ‘tolerance of the other’ built Western Civilization?
Further, where does the tolerance stop?
I do know that tolerance was awful popular in late Roman Empire…
Please do not confuse the defense of marriage as “intolerance.” Doesn’t work.
Please do not confuse the defense of marriage with intolerance. It doesn’t work.
Whoa!!!!!
Does the author not see that the father (if a Christian) is refusing to assent that a stone is bread, and that a serpent is a fish?
GOOD gifts unto your children. And see St. Augustine re: the “goods of marriage”.
“States that have legalized gay marriage tend to have strong public support for it.”
Really? You have numbers to back this up?
I am aware of not a single referundum or poll which backs up this claim, although I certainly can’t assert that no such thing exists. Referendum results would be good; even poll results would do. But without the numbers it’s all meaningless blather or, even worse, mere whistling past the graveyard.
Be careful that the referenda and polls aren’t conflating “marriage” and “civil unions”, concepts which are conceptually distinct despite semantic arguments to the contrary. Obfuscating the difference is a classic technique of those who claim “strong public support” without having the numbers to demonstrate such.
Excellent point. When you consider that Proposition 8 passed in California of all places, it naturally begs questions about Belladonna’s assertions of stron support of gay mariage.
1) “There is, however, no evidence that gay marriage is a cause of, or indeed has anything whatsoever to do with the erosion of two-parent families.”
Gay Marriage and Hetero Divorce are driven by the same assumption; Marriage is foremost about adult fulfillment, not about the social wellfare or children produced by sex.
2) “one major fact: the majority of sexual relations in Western heterosexual marriages don’t lead to procreation, either, because of the use of birth control.”
Here are some other facts: 100% of the people have a 1 biological Mother and 1 Biological Father. They are a necessary condition.
Also, almost 85% of all have a baby at some point. Study after study shows children raised by intact biological families have the fewest pathologies.
3) No way does Gay Marriage stabilize the institution. They totally divorce Monogamy from commitment. And why shouldn’t they; Gay sex is as significant as a popcorn fart.
I believe that as a Christian, Jim has the opportunity to demonstrate God’s unconditional love for us in attending his son’s wedding, therefore he should. In doing that, it doesn’t mean he’s going back on his belief system, just that he loves his son and wants to be there for him even if he doesn’t agree.
Upholding God’s Law will demonstrate Jim’s love for God. If you’re a Christian, I’m sorry that the Tolerance Agenda has so perverted your view of God’s unconditional love.
1)Real love doesn’t honor or support you in doing something wicked.
2)If you’re Protestant, the answer to WHY is right there in that dust-covered bible on your coffee table.
3)How do you get your husband to the wedding? You don’t. You can at least pretend to honor your husband’s place as head of the household and not go around trying to connive what you want, either.
I’m a conservative with a strong libertarian streak. I think that the country would be better served if people would separate the political and the personal in this. I don’t have a problem with gays, although I do worry about them raising children — I think kids need role models of both sexes for proper development, and it’s the lack of that that causes the problem in single-parent households, not the lack of numbers. That said, the constitution is pretty clear that it isn’t my business, and I agree. Allowing government to control this is no different than the Obama mandate. Conservatives should know better. If you’re willing to use the government control this social issue than you have no business complaining when it indulges in social engineering for the libs. It’s entirely possible to personally disapprove of homosexuality but to accept that it’s within their rights — just as I disapprove of people putting their kids through beauty pageants but it’s not for me to stop them.
The other side of this is that liberals seem to be convinced that tolerance and Approval are synonymous. They’re not. We already are essentially to the point of tolerance (that means that not everyone likes it but we don’t make it a crime or legally discriminate) with some rough edges. Marriage is the last area to fix. But accepting marriage means approval, not tolerance. It’s the ultimate seal of legitimacy. Tolerance would be civil unions.
An excellent column that, has raised important issues and elicited some smart comments and, alas, some raw and primitive ones. Increasingly, I am coming to think that, on social and economic issues, there are really two parties in our country. The party of people who know what is best for everybody else and are determined to make them do it. And the party of “leave us alone” and we’ll make our own decisions. The party of do-what-I-say has its adherents on the left and the right, among religious believers and atheists, among strong conservatives and left-wing ideologues. Their preferences are different, but they all know exactly what everyone else should do. I am delighted that Belladonna is NOT among them. Her analysis and advice are wise.
Thanks Tim, for expressing precisely how I feel.
WELL SAID. It’s mind-bending that staunch conservatives insist that their idea of “sin” should be legally enforced by the government. We used to think – according to scripture – that women should obey their husbands, therefore no need for them to vote (it would just duplicate their husband’s vote). We used to believe that because divorce was a sin, our government should make it legally almost impossible to acquire one. Some used to believe that since the Bible obviously condoned slavery (Paul even sent a runaway slave back to his master in Philemon) our government should also condone it. We outlawed liquor in a religous fit during the prohibition.
This stuff is the SAME as leftist liberals enforcing their ideas of moral behavior on the rest of us (pay for others’ health insurance etc).
Tim, your comment is the best one here.
Oh get off your high horse. This has nothing to do with “government” enforcement against sinful behavior. This is about Jim expressing his opinion that homosexuality is wrong so he doesn’t want to attend the wedding. That is a moral discussion, not a legal one, so, like Belladonna, you are not even in the same ballpark on this discussion.
You know what…yes, Jim should go to the wedding. Then, when asked why the two should not be married, he could object on the grounds that it is a sin. I guess that is the more palatable option since Jim staying home from a gay marriage is so damn offensive!
Hmmm…. hit a raw nerve? Or just looking for a place today to put your anger? Everyone here who is against Ms. Rogers’ advice to attend the son’s wedding are also supporting and sanctioning anti-gay-marriage laws because, well, because “it’s a sin.” Read the comments next time before you rage (or really, I should say to grow up).
Disdain, not anger.
For someone who condones reading, perhaps you ought to try the same considering that “Jim’s” wife was not asking for societal interpretations of opposing arguments of the legality and acceptance of homosexual marriage. You, like Belladonna got off in the weeds when the topic turned to statistics and logical structure of arguments.
I don’t blame you because it’s the best you can do, obviously.
The letter identified a problem and asked, “What can I do?”
When you actually make an attempt to address that question, then we’ll know you’ve climbed off your soapbox.
In the movie “As Good as it Gets” Jack Nicholson said, “I’m drowning here! And your describing the water!”
Quit describing the water to Confused in Kansas.
Hit a nerve again? Read the comments – including point four in the comment below – how many here indeed go “off into the weeds” about legal sanctioning of gay marriage. You are trying to drown out reasoned and appropriate discussion with disdain and ridicule and volume – just like the liberals. It’s sad.
“Everyone here who is against Ms. Rogers’ advice to attend the son’s wedding are also supporting and sanctioning anti-gay-marriage laws…”
No, everyone is not. Most people here are discussing Jim’s justification for thinking homosexual marriage is a sin.
Some people are responding to the legal parts of the discussion because a small segment (to include you and Belladonna) is trying to hijack a values based discussion and transform it into a “civil rights” debate.
Absolutely nothing was “hijacked” My reply comment was posted after more than 70 postings were already here. And most of them, including YOUR OWN reply to #64 addressed legal sanctioning of gay marriage…seven hours before I commented. I’m making this reply for those who might read this. It’s obvious that you argue like a liberal … distract, ridicule, insult, overwhelm.
Back again huh? And still misqouting scriptures. You should get a refund from that college went to.
This was an interesting but ultimately unsatisfying article for many reasons.
1. If I were a gay activist I would not press the argument that homosexuality is genetic. If it were, then gene testing and abortion could allow mothers to assure that none of their children were gay.
2. It is more probable that if there is a biological substrate to homosexuality it occurs as a secondary intrauterine effect based on hormone levels and/or maternal antibodies against the Y chromosome.
3. There is no satisfactory proof of the irreducible proclivity for homosexuality. Kinsey’s studies were flawed because he defined homosexuality to include everyone who had even a single such experience, and the prison population, among other things, skewed his numbers. The probable number is somewhere between 0.5% and 8% of the male population but to date no one has truly nailed it down. Therefore to pass off both the DNA theory and the 8% or higher number is neither scientific nor intellectually honest.
4. The slippery slope theory depends on the underlying principles on which we base our decision to ratify same sex marriage. If the principle is that anyone should be able to marry whom they love, then what do we do with the bisexuals who may have an equally strong biological claim as to their identity and who love a male and a female? Shall we say that our principle is to allow straights and gays to marry the one they love but deny this to bisexuals? What is the principle for that? (If you appeal to tradition, you have made yourself vulnerable to the validity of the tradition argument that opposes same sex marriage.)
5. On what principled basis should we deny two post-fertility aged siblings from marrying? What if they love each other as much as the gay couple love each other? And since the female in the sibling marriage is post-menapausal then there is no danger of genetic conditions being created. Or what about two brothers who want to marry? Again, if you appeal to tradition, you open the door to the validity of tradition trumping gay marriage. Or what about a son marrying his post-menapausal mother or marrying his father (assuming that the son is of age)? You can’t use tradition as your argument here either.
6. What do we do with an immigrant from a Moslem country who comes to the United States wanting to bring his four brides with him? Shall we deny him entry because he is practicing his religious beliefs? Shall we force him to annul or divorce three of his wives? Won’t that be a form of discrimination? And what if he loves all four the same way the gay couple love each other? On what principled basis — remember you can’t use the argument of tradition — shall you oppose this?
7. Regardless of the Defense of Marriage Act, there will come a time when the Supreme Court will rule that the “full faith and credit” clause applies to gay marriage. My hypothetical test case imagines two Noble Prize winning scientists from MIT moving to New Mexico to work at Los Alamos on a project of great national security importance. They are married in Massachusetts and want the marriage recognized in New Mexico. They will prevail in the courts. Then all marriages in any state will be required to be recognized in all states.
8. And then what if a state with a large Islamic population — say Michigan — permits that immigrant to bring all four of his wives and recognizes, on the grounds of religious toleration, his four marriages? Is all that inconceivable? Think back 50 years ago on attitudes toward same sex marriage and measure how they have changed, and then assure me that in the next 50 years there is zero chance of this.
9. The simplest construction project needs an environmental impact report. A school we built — next door to four other schools in an area zoned for schools — required nearly $2 million in environmental impact reports and traffic abatement studies before we could get city approval to start construction. Yet a change in the social order that overturns thousands of years of practice is being undertaken with aplomb.
10. On the other hand, I do understand the desire for men and women who love people of their same sex to be together in a sanctioned relationship that has no hint of second class status. But we must ask ourselves, “Why do we give special status and special privileges to married couples?” Do we want to keep the “marriage premium” for those couples most likely to procreate? Or do we want to make the “marriage premium” of lesser value through inflation?
11. Perhaps the answer is that married people tend to behave, in general and with exceptions, in a more responsible way than those who are not married. Having responsibility for another person tends to make individuals more careful and more future oriented. Yes, yes, yes, there are exceptions. But this is still generally true. So if those same sex marriages tend to make those people behave more like the traditional marriages, that would probably be a plus for society. On the other hand, male-male relationships in general tend to be less like traditional marriages and more like promiscuous single person behavior. Female-female relationships on the other hand do tend to behave more like traditional marriages. So if male-male marriages tend to resemble straight marriages, with the single exception that both are of the same sex, this will probably not hurt society.
12. But who can foresee what the long term results will be? And are we really prepared to let this particular genie out of the bottle, knowing that we will never be able to put it back if things turn out badly? I guess we are, but please do not mock or dismiss those who have their reservations. Same sex marriage is among the most wrenching and vexing I can think about. I see the emotional reasoning for both sides. In both I see those who argue from authority — usually Biblical or some other related religious perspective. One should be very careful about doing that, as earlier comments have pointed out.
13. And in both cases I can see the absence of principled reasoning coming from those on all sides. I plead for all to have a greater respect for anyone who tries to analyze this issue from a principled position and to avoid cheap name calling. I also plead for those who write articles and editorials to cease passing off flawed statistics and inaccurate “scientific” conclusions. To do so is an intellectually dishonest practice that cheapens the dialogue and weakens the argument. For that reason I am sadly disappointed by this article and by some of the comments on this blog.
Like it or not, same sex marriage is here and is spreading. Those same sex couples who live traditional married lives will benefit. Those same sex couples who define traditional marriage downward will have a corrosive effect. And the unexpected slippery slope of other alternative marriages (starting with bisexuals and then the ratification of Islamic multiple marriage) will come as a surprise to those who are now destroying the argument from tradition. Once destroyed, the argument from tradition will not again be a bulwark against radical transformation of social organization. It will not happen overnight but it will surely happen.
In the mean time, let’s have more intellectual precision and honesty and let’s have respect for anyone who attempts to engage in honest and principled dialogue.
1. I think homosexuality is gross. Sorry, that’s my gut reaction; I’m guessing there are a lot of gays who thinks heterosexuality is gross, too. However, I have gay friends and they are wonderful folks. I don’t think about what they do in their bedrooms – and I don’t think about what any of my hetero friends do in the bedroom either. Shudder.
2. If my son were marrying his (hypothetical) boyfriend, I’d attend the marriage. It’s courtesy and a way to show how much I love him. Has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with family. I’m wondering if there is more to the father/son issue than the letter-writer lets on.
3. The best political solution is conservative-libertarian, and was not even mentioned: divorce marriage from the government. Make weddings something you do in a religious ceremony with or without state sanction – but make all those legal bits attached to marriage part of a legally-binding contract. This removes every single social argument against gay marriage by placing it mostly in the private, not public, arena.
This also eliminates hordes of legal issues surrounding the dissolution of a marriage by requiring both (or all) parties to adhere to their contractual obligations. Disposition of all properties and obligations would be contained within the contract, including inheritance, living arrangements, and child custody – and penalties for dissolution could be as strong or as casual as either party wishes. This would make marriage very individualized, as is appropriate for a private institution.
“(a) Tradition: Throughout history, most societies and religions stigmatized homosexuality and none has sanctioned marriage between members of the same sex…
(b) It shouldn’t, which is why opponents then evoke the “slippery slope:” “If gay marriage is acceptable, why can’t I marry my dog?” they ask, “Or my sister, my daughter, or under legalized polygamy, all three?””
How about the evidence that has been evident for the entirety of humans living together. The gay lifestyle is the lifestyle of the dead. They produce no future, have no skin in the future, and have no reason to plan for the future and work for the future to be better for, wait for it, the children.
As has been evident from the beginning of human time, immoral cultures deteriorate, degenerate, and eventually the end of the society and people it formed. While gay relationships (even marriages) are not all by themselves going to be the end of a thriving culture, the idea of celebrating gay relationships with marriage demonstrates that the society is no longer moral and has no intention of ever becoming moral, and again thriving.
You do not need religion, you do not need tradition, to come to the conclusion that it is not beneficial in any sense to celebrate taking any number of healthy people out of the pool permanently from which the next generation should be procreated, particularly in a society that is no longer procreating at higher than the replacement rate, such as ours, sans the illegal and legal immigrants birthrates. All you need is for responsible people to look at the results of doing so.
I have never in my life considered libertarians to be responsible people, none of us here consider progressives to be responsible people, and for the most part, fiscal conservative is nothing more than a I already pay mine, I do not want to pay for other people to take even more from me. As I stated over at AT yesterday, 40% to 70% of the people in the Tea Party are not conservatives, as the only reason they are up in arms is because they know that when the bills come due, they are next in line to be paying them, and want to stop that from happening. It is evident that this is so when you look at polls of Tea Party members and you cannot reach 50% on any single cut proposal. They do not want any of their candy being taken from them, and they do not want to pay any more for that candy. Not exactly very mature, and these are the best of the best as far as responsibility goes at the present.
If we are ever going to get control of our budget, the very first thing we need to take control of is the moral fabric of those who are voting for representatives. Either we cut those who do not pay any taxes off the voting roles, or we confront them and teach them to be good moral citizens that can do for themselves and not expect to be taken care of by other peoples hard work.
Claiming that pro gay marriage advocates are conservative is an oxymoron. I do not care if they want a strong defensive posture on the part of the government, that just means they do not want to die, a reasonable thought even by the worst degenerates in our society. I do not care that they claim to want fiscal responsibility, because as I already said, many of them probably make enough money that when the taxes come due, they are going to be target number one, because the rich will just stop earning, and thus stop paying, it then moves onto the next richest group of people to pick up the slack. It is smart of them to look that far into the future and make somewhat tough choices today to prevent even worse choices in the future. Which begs the question, if they are smart enough to figure out the future as respect to spending today and taxes tomorrow, why are they and people like you not smart enough to put together the thought of celebrating the gay lifestyle of death today and the faster decline of the society tomorrow? Or further yet, why are you not able to figure out that continuing to allow the society to become even more immoral is going to cause it to be worse off tomorrow?
And an addendum.
Why do we celebrate marriages? Is it the joining of a man and a woman? That may be a tiny part of it. But what we are really celebrating is the eventual children they will have together, and the fact that those children will be raised in a stable home, so they will grow to be mature and responsible adults who will make the future a better place. That is worth celebrating! That better future is where the parents of those children are going to be getting old, and not as able to earn a living, and those mature and responsible now adults will be there to be able to care for their parents and grandparents as needed. Those parents and grandparent, while being cared for by their children and grandchildren will also be helping care for their grandchildren and great grandchildren, thus fulfilling the circle of life that creates the greatest benefit to the individual and the society that is possible. That is worth celebrating.
Yes.
That is a reason why in some cultures both sides of the family (sometimes even the “community”) witness the consummation of the marriage.
I believe Ms. Rogers is not sufficiently familiar with the arguments against “gay marriage” (especially those logically obligatory for any Christian), and gives those arguments short shrift.
I mentioned that there are arguments against “gay marriage” which are logically obligatory for Christians. To understand them, one first must tease out five questions which are often conflated:
QUESTION #1. May a Christian regard mutual masturbation between same-gender persons as anything other than intrinsically sinful?
ANSWER: No. To do so is to hold a view which, if true, falsifies Christianity.
The reason is that holding this view requires holding that on a topic of major importance, the early Christians (both the apostles and the apostolic fathers who were taught the faith and raised to church leadership by the apostles) were entirely dead wrong on a topic where they thought their view utterly non-controversial. This means either that Jesus was not God, or that the apostles — from whom we know everything we know about Christ — were very unreliable sources, and that Jesus’ real message is probably lost to us. Either way, the practice of real Christianity by individuals today is falsified.
There are other reasons as well. Human sexuality is, in Christianity and Natural Law moral reasoning, a thing given by God both for procreation and for maintaining the husband-wife bond, the permanence of which is in the best interest of the spouses, the children, and the grandchildren. To use this power exclusively in a way which defeats these purposes is disordered, just as to use one’s power of eating solely to eat sheet rock and plastic wrap is disordered. Same-Sex Attraction Disorder is, in that way similar to the disorder called Pica. It is not rational to categorize it otherwise; and God bids us use our minds in accord with right reason.
QUESTION #2. May a Christian morally support two persons contractually agreeing to a sinful shared habit, whatever the state of law?
ANSWER: No. One does not constantly have to hit one’s neighbor over the head with moral disapproval for his sins — that’s rude and may (or may not) involve the deadly sin of self-righteousness — but it is sinful to signal moral approval of or encouragement of his sins. Doing so contributes to the damnation of your neighbor’s soul, which is a very serious thing.
QUESTION #3. May a Christian support the abolition of law against an intrinsically sinful act?
ANSWER: Yes, he can, and perhaps must. The criminal code obligates the government to use armed force against those who violate it. But some sins are not of a type or severity which justifies the use of armed force to deter, stop, or punish them. Since an un-justified use of force is a sin, Christians must oppose un-justified uses of force in law. If a Christian judges that the use of force against a particular sinful act is un-justified, he must oppose criminalization of that act.
QUESTION #4. May a Christian support the passage of a law endorsing or subsidizing an intrinsically sinful act?
ANSWER: No, he cannot, for the same reasons as given in the answer to QUESTION #2.
QUESTION #5. May a Christian attend a ceremony where an intrinsically sinful act is celebrated?
ANSWER: Maybe. On the one hand, he must not give tacit approval or endorsement to the intrinsically sinful act, and scandalize other Christians. On the other hand, it may be that his presence will not be interpreted as tacit approval or endorsement; and it may be that his absence will be mis-interpreted as hatred for the persons involved, or self-righteousness. That the accusation is generally false does not mean the Christian should not care; where possible, he should be “at peace with all men” and “avoid the appearance of evil.” If he can best do this by attending the ceremony, without thereby endorsing sin, he must attend the ceremony.
These are the kinds of things a serious Christian must contend with in making up his mind. The dumbed-down list given by Ms. Rogers demonstrates she does not know the arguments of those with whom she disagrees. She is, in that way, well-intentioned but typical.
With the wide acceptance of gay marriage, the time has come to get the government out of the marriage recognition business. Since very few people bother to get married before having children, and with the marriage tax penalty for working couples, the old rationales for incentivizing stable procreative relationships have disappeared–can we just admit that those incentives weren’t, in the end, strong enough to withstand the corrosive effects of religious decay and relativism? This generation of gays is pissed off that hetero “breeders” get something they don’t. Fine–get rid of the inequality not by allowing everyone to get married, but by letting no one get married. No government-sanctioned marriage!
Alternatively, get Religion out of the marriage business. By all means have marriages solemnised, commemorated, celebrated in a religious ceremony if you wish. But that should neither be necessary nor sufficient.
It isn’t at the moment, is it? 2 atheists are allowed to marry. A marriage can be celebrated by an atheist justice of the peace.
Maybe a history lesson is in order. In England, under the Anglican Church, marriage by consent and cohabitation was valid until the passage of Lord Hardwicke’s Act in 1753. This act instituted certain requirements for marriage, including the performance of a religious ceremony observed by witnesses and performed by Anglican clerics
Jews and Quakers were exempted, though the status of such marriages was left an open question, and the act specifically did not apply to the American colonies, nor to Scotland. Catholic ceremonies were not recognised.
The 1753 act was repealed in 1837, from which time civil marriages with no religious component were recognised, and the situation prior to 1753 restored. Opposition to this bill included this statement:
“Not solemnized by the church of England, may be celebrated without entering into a consecrated building, may be contracted by anybody, and will be equally valid, whether it takes place in the house of God, or in the house of a registering clerk, one of the lowest functionaries of the state. The parties may take one another for better and for worse, without calling God to witness their plighted troth. No blessing sought; no solemn vows of mutual fidelity; no religious solemnity whatever …”
In the United States, it was left up to the various states to make up whatever legislative requirements they wanted. It has always been a secular matter, the churches being granted rights by the states.
This is an absolute bald faced lie. That stat probably doesn’t hold true in liberal states, but it certainly doesn’t hold true for America.
The approval of same sex marriage has never won a popular vote. In states like mine, the vote is more than 3-1 against. Don’t give this liberal horse sh!t as fact.
This is the second blatant piece of rank propaganda from this Belladonna Rogers I’ve read here in two days. Is this the direction of PJM staff? If so, I think you’re going to be losing about 75% of your audience quite soon LGF style.
I don’t know how I missed that but you’re absolutely right!
53% of Californian voted for Prop. 8 which amended the state constitution and upheld marriage as an institution between male and female!
If that’s a California result, then it certainly cannot be that 53% of the country favors gay marriage. Belladona may not have lied herself..but she was certainly lied to!
You are in error:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx
I still say BS. This is “fun with statistics” and 1000 person phone polls. Put it up for real referendum again and see what happens.
So I assume you’ll have no problem putting the Defense of Marriage Act to a National Referendum?
If so, would you like to put some big money on that?
It won’t even be close…Gallup, or no Gallup.
Jim will miss his son’s marriage; essentially it is his loss. So it goes.
He is missing his son’s planned, willful, conscious decision to ruin his own life.
The Commandment is, ” Honor thy father and thy mother “, not honor thy children.
Wonderful … and well-done.
A few years back, I heard someone say something like, remember: “Love is love, is love, is love!”
All true love is blessed. Who are we to say otherwise. Thank you, Belladonna.
>> All true love is blessed. Who are we to say otherwise.
There is absolutely no one here saying otherwise, or even hinting otherwise.
The topic is “having gay sex and calling it marriage.”
Please try to focus.
OMG. I thought this kind of contemptuous snarkiness was the domain of liberals who have few brains and emote pure bias. I find myself more than a little nauseated.
Got a nose for your own, do ya?
(cue music) sticks and stones… I guess we’re now in first grade here. It’s what folks do when they have nothing intelligent to contribute.
Oh aack … so gay sex is by definition loveless and not worthy of marriage? Not from what I’ve seen. Love is what it is … where it is. Sex can be an expression of love. Thinking that gay sex is somehow “beneath” the dignity of marriage seems like prejudice plain and simple.
Jim, your perverted pornographic mindset is the “usual” for anti-gay conservatives and/or Christians. Hmmm… I’m busy now imagining your parents having sex …. is it love or is it filth? Is their “marriage” a cover for lust? (Jesus talked about that, you know)
hmm…. I’ll decide. But wait, wait, I’m not done imagining yet.
Disgusting.
Hmmm …
Remember when we all thought that sex between our parents was disgusting. We were — what — all of about ten years old about then? We grew out of that, didn’t we? Didn’t we?? Maybe it’s time to grow out of this too.
Sheesh
God created Adam and Eve and NOT Adam and STEVE because if he had done so this argument would have no living participants.
Really? With God…all things are possible. Ever wonder about Jesus and “the disciple that Jesus loved”?
You are hilarious, Dwight. Jesus was a homosexual? Wow, learn something new everyday! Why stop there? Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jefferson all gay? After all, with God, everything is possible.
Dwight:
You say, ‘Ever wonder about Jesus and “the disciple that Jesus loved”?’
Well, no. What is there to wonder about?
When one reads ancient documents one interprets them, if one possesses any intellectual honesty, the way their authors intended them to be understood by the intended readers.
This is why snarky remarks about David and Jonathan, or about Jesus and John, are so sophomoric, so asinine.
Quite apart from the cowardice of folk feeling free to play such dirty tricks with Jesus — the equivalent of a biography of Martin Luther King Jr. which has him sewing hoods for the Klan — knowing that Christians won’t behead them for it because, well, they aren’t Muslims…quite apart from that, to make Jesus and “the disciple Jesus loved” into same-sex fornicators is just anachronistic. It takes the poverty of the English language (one word, “love,” applied to about nine entirely different things!) and transposes the Greek language and Semitic culture into the poorer medium to comic effect. Comic, that is, unless one is damn fool enough to take it seriously!
Well, we can vouch for the fact that MLK was heterosexual; just ask J. Edgar Hoover.
You hear me as slandering Jesus, whereas I have spent a fair amount of time trying to figure out what he actually may have been. “Son of God” works for you, but the idea of a Jehweh god, not a Greek god having a son, does not quite work for me. He was obviously a special person who believed in non-violence and spirituality as opposed to patriotism and materialism, 99% of the time. He never married, although Kazantzakis has fun pushing him in that direction.
You can be sure that if Jesus showed up today, the Church would have him crucified; see the Grand Inquisitor’s argument to Jesus in The Brothers Karamazov.
How “believers” in Jesus can turn out to be such good fighters, capitalists, and exploiters of the downtrodden has to be one of history’s great ironies. But the whole kit n kaboodle is now historical “fact.” I am not trying to deny, by the way, that Christians are a diverse lot, but the ones who tend to be warhawk, gay bashing righties are among the more paradoxical.
Who knew, that when Jesus said that you should leave your mother and father and follow him, that he also was advising you to distance yourself from if your son if he were gay? Seriously, that does not sound like the Jesus I hear in the New Testament. Granted, it may sound like Hebraic Law and smiting the Canaanites, but Jesus got way beyond that.
Dwight-
You mistake Christ’s forgiveness or the repentant as tolerance. In fact, Christ was fairly intolerant of unrepentant sinners AND those who won’t give up their sinfulness.
As far as the contradictions of those who have failed to live up to the their own professed standards, here is a quote from a favorite author of mine Ronald Rolheiser.
“The church is always God hung between two thieves. Thus no one should be surprised or shocked at how badly the church has betrayed the gospel and how much it continues to do so today. It has never done very well. Conversely, however, nobody should deny the good the church has done either. It has carried grace, produced saints, morally challenged the planet, and made, however imperfectly, a house for God to dwell in on this earth.
To be connected with the church is to be associated with scoundrels, warmongers, fakes, child-molesters, murderers, adulterers and hypocrites of every description. It also, at the same time, identifies you with saints and the finest persons of heroic soul within every time, country, race and gender. To be a member of the church is to carry the mantle of both the worst sin and the finest heroism of soul….because the church always looks exactly as it looked at the original crucifixion, God hung among thieves.”
newguy40, Great quotation from Rolheiser!
If you look at how things changed from Moses to Jesus, and then how much society has changed since Jesus, it seems to me that one could expect proscriptions on sexuality to evolve. I know that to be a conservative usually means to freeze moments and principles in time, and then always refer back to them longingly, as in the Bible and the Constitution…while society moves ever onward, both for good and for bad.
“Love thy neighbor as thyself,” and “Lord, who is my neighbor?” give all of us more than we can handle. Would we agree on that? The core teaching of modern righties is that for Jesus to say this is holy, but for government to do it, is criminal. Many apparently feel or believe that there is no contradiction here. There IS…. for me.
This is a terrific column. I appreciate that it’s on a conservative site.
We need more rational thinking like this on controversial subjects; Especially on conservative sites where so many commentators appear to be so self righteous.
I grow so weary of my fellow conservatives thinking they have a mandate to be the social police for everyone.
I’m a Christian and a conservative, but I can appreciate well laid out food for thought. I don’t have to agree with everything to find value in it.
Thank you Belladonna. Don’t let the majority of these posts discourage you.
“or that men name their sons “Jr.” “III,” and so on, all the way to Louis XVI.”
Well actually, not all the way to Louis XVI.
Ruling nobles are numbered because they are identified only by a single given name, and thus need to be distinguished from one another.
While Louis XVI was the latest in a long line of Louis’, Louis XV was his grandfather, Louis XIV was his g-g-great grandfather, Louis XIII was his g-g-g-great grandfather, a whole lot of Louis’ dying without ever reigning.
Conversely Louis XII was a distant cousin, as was Louis XI, and it is only with Louis X, who reigned back at the start of the 14th century, that there is a direct connection through younger sons to Louis XVI.
“9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will give him a stone?
10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?”
9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask poison, will give him poison?
10 Or if he ask a stone, will he give him a stone?
11 If ye then, being evil, know how not to give evil gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven not give evil things to them that ask him?
That is the flip side of the argument. The entirety of the Christian faith is that man is flawed, and that heaven cannot accept flawed souls. When it was the Hebrews, he taught them the things that lead to death, and of those was the act of sodomy. He gave them warnings of their evil lifestyles of death by asking them to kill living creatures to signify the death that their sins will cause to themselves. The Jews did not learn, and instead used those sacrifices as a form of money to earn the privilege of sinning. God, finally unable to bring mankind into a position to earn Heaven on his own, sent his only Son as the ultimate and final sacrifice for mankind. Those who accept God’s Son and ardently and honestly strive to live a life worthy of God’s sacrifice of his only Son can have their soul cleansed and be worthy of living in heaven, all others shall find the burning fires of hell as their welcome. God gives good gifts, he does not deny good gifts to his children, yet sodomy was denied, which tells you which side biblical account would take. You speak the words and in your heart you are dead and decaying, let the dead bury the dead, go out and teach the good words and do not tary with the unclean.
It is a sure path of destruction. What’s the big hurry to bring it on?
A tip: before taking it on yourself to write up a summary of the conservative arguments for traditional marriage, you might want to familiarize yourself with them. If I thought that the pathetic arguments you offer here is the best there is for traditional marriage, I would be for gay marriage too.
On the other hand, I like the technique of psychological analysis of people who disagree with you. It gives you that useful “everyone on the other side of this debate is working from irrational fears and prejudices, not like us fully rational scientific types” vibe.
Let me see if I can do it: people who support gay marriage are primarily motivated by a desire to be popular. Since mainstream culture has successfully painted traditional morality as both immoral and psychologically disordered, weak-willed people are afraid to be associated with it. This urge is especially strong among libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives who are already very uncomfortable at the way that popular culture perceives their economic views, so they try to reduce the discomfort of being associated with social conservatives by joining liberals in their crusade to demonize them. Libertarians feel that by helping to drive the opinions of their political allies out of the sphere of polite society they will not only ingratiate themselves with their political enemies, but also will reduce the hostility of these culture-makers to conservative economic principles.
Wow. That was easy. And now that I have reduced you to just an unthinking animal who is only reacting reflexively and irrationally to stimuli, I feel very intellectually superior –AND I don’t have to respond to any of your arguments, since only rational people can make arguments. This give me a quite heady feeling of power.
Thanks for cluing me in on this technique.
I think you have done an excellent job of summing up those tired old techniques that are so very over-played.
I might add to your well presented comments that the illusion of doing good for mankind, is also slopped heavily over most of the leftie arguments.
But I ask; how can one do any good for mankind when they deliberately lead the people on to a path of certain destruction? Especially when all good advice, experience and evidence points to the fact of destruction.
It is a deeply cold, hard way of ‘doing good’ for anyone. These arguments are foolish and uninformed. Not to be trusted.
Life is too short to quibble over love and sexuality. Love and sexuality are major stress releasers in a world full of uncertainty and stress.
On the contrary, Delia. Human love and sexuality are so very important and should never be relegated to a stress releaser. They are the bedrock.
2331 “God is love and in himself he lives a mystery of personal loving communion. Creating the human race in his own image . . .. God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion.”
2332 Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.
Tell that to the PUA morons who visit Roissy DC. lol!
1. There should be no government license for anything, including marriage. 2. This entire analysis is crap. Behavior is not determined. What if everyone was allowed and defended in every proclivity?
teapartydoc, where actually did you learn that “This entire analysis is crap” is something called a “comment”? It is, in fact, the verbal equivalent of smacking someone in the face with a musket, a cream pie or a sledgehammer. It isn’t a reasonable position that anyone over the age of two should be pleased to have made. You give the entire Tea Party a bad name by having a tantrum when a reasonable person you’ve never met writes a fair essay which, by the way, you were under no obligation to read, and frankly, there’s no indication you did read it carefully.
Well said, thank you.
This whole question is a sham, as is the advice offered.
If marriage were important to the saintly gay doctor and his boyfriend, they could have had a wedding ceremony at any number of liberal Protestant churches a long time ago, even without going to New York City. Why did they wait?
The call for legalized same-sex marriage pretends to be about respect and tolerance, but the questioner and the advice columnist show no respect or tolerance for the father. His moral and religious principles are treated as a mere obstacle.
Instead, why not live in peace and let him follow the dictates of his conscience?
Are the son and the boyfriend so small-minded that they cannot accept to have friendly relations with the father except on their rather unusual terms?
Really, this whole piece is disappointingly bad.
There is only one reason for the push for gay-marriage and that is to destroy the church. You can see it in California where the gay agenda is pushed in school by legislature with no exemptions for private religious schools (except madrassas, of course). You can see it in states that had civil unions that provided all the rights that marriage provided married couples and it wasn’t enough. Gays want the ability to sue churches out of existence – period.
The main argument I’ve heard against same-sex marriage is that marriage is the officially sanctioned bond within which sex is practiced for procreation, and sex for procreation implies a heterosexual relationship.
But that ship sailed a long time ago, thanks to modern medicine.
The first step came in 1960 with the contraceptive Pill, which enabled a woman to have sex without procreation.
The second step came in 1978 with in-vitro fertilization (IVF), which enabled a woman to have procreation without sex.
The link between sex and procreation has been broken. With modern medicine, you can have either one without the other.
It has made possible some really novel arrangements, like a childless heterosexual couple hiring a woman to act as surrogate mother, carrying their child to term and then handing it over to them after it’s born.
Now it’s possible for a woman in a lesbian relationship to have IVF and give birth to a child.
The Pill and IVF did much more damage to the traditional concept of marriage than same-sex marriage ever could. Because a gay couple in a same-sex marriage does not affect existing opposite-sex marriages. But if a couple in an opposite-sex marriage uses the Pill and IVF, then it is they who are radically changing the relationship between marriage and procreation.
Over at National Review, Maggie Gallagher recognizes this, which is why she’s still railing against the contraceptive Pill. But I’m afraid that’s a lost cause. Even staunchly conservative women these days are on the Pill. With the average woman not marrying till she’s 30 years old these days, women don’t want to remain virgins that long.
Myopic people like you only see what you want to see. You take the whole of the institution of marriage and distill it down to a tiny little part. Expand your vision, go out and research why it is best that procreation happens in a committed relationship between a man and a woman, and is not best when it is done by a single mother, and is not best when it is in a single sex two partner relationship, whether the two partners are practicing gays or just happen to be close friends/relatives who do not want to be married to someone of the opposite sex. Get back to us when you are done educating yourself and tell us what you found out. Until then, I will give your post as much credence as it deserves, which is none.
When I see evidence that allowing gay marriage to take place serves to undermine our society to the point that it is destroyed, then I might entertain the possibility that any & all arguments against it are valid.
Meantime, I am not going to assume that homosexuality isn’t as natural for those who are gay as heterosexuality is for those of us who are straight. I refuse to ask other people to virtually live a lie (deny the presence of their condition as gays), not marry the person they love because she/he is gay, etc. Doing such strikes me as completely & utterly unreasonable. “Live & let live” is as poignant as it is simple.
Malheureusement, these unfortunates are already living a lie.
“Live and let live” is pretty much the reality. But these unfortunates do not reciprocate. For the sake of their awful pleasures, they wish to change (to be candid, destroy) the foundational unit of society.
Not very loving, that.
“Unfortunates.” Illustrates a hallmark of a condescending view with a rather jaundiced approach at the attempt to be patronizing. Utterly unacceptable & contemptible. If you’re trying to come off as a pinheaded bigot, you’ve done a stellar job.
““Unfortunates.” Illustrates a hallmark of a condescending view with a rather jaundiced approach at the attempt to be patronizing. Utterly unacceptable & contemptible. If you’re trying to come off as a pinheaded bigot, you’ve done a stellar job.”
I thank you for your careful thinking and civil tone. “Unfortunate” is a mild word for the state of people who give themselves such poor prospects on the health front (that refers to 20-year reduced life expectancy, diseases, etc. all well documented). Ditto for their failure to penetrate the mysteries of how sex is supposed to operate (that’s confusion). Ditto for the parade of pathologies that go with homo”sex”ual activity (that’s ignorance of physiological realities).
Do you see that misfortunes come to these unfortunates from a variety of directions? Do you see that these misfortunes are self-inflicted?
Notice I did not call you any names; this is because I don’t know you, but there are pejoratives that fit your words.
As for this gay physician’s father going to his son’s wedding or not, he should be allowed to do as he pleases, & everyone else in his sphere should be understanding & supportive of whatever decision he makes.
The father IS allowed to do as he pleases. He has such a well-formed conscience that he holds to his beliefs even at the expense of separation from his son. It galls the homo”sex”uals to learn what a man with a strong moral sense thinks of their activities.
The consequence is perfectly predictable: in accord with the low level of maturity, the emotionality, and the poor reasoning of homo”sex”uals, they pretend the father is wrong, and bad, and stupid, and such.
If I recall correctly the article doesn’t allude to the son’s reaction. Again your case of apparent narrow-minded homophobia shows like a slip. I pray you never have any gay children.
It’s unfortunate that the liberals are actually right about the “right wing” of the Republican party. Pin-headed bigots, judgmental, gay-bashing homophobes … Not all, but too, too many. I’m so ashamed sometimes of the people I have to lock-arms with in the political arena because the liberals are wrong about everything else.
It is hard to miss my point, but you have done it. I am referring to the reaction of the homo”sex”uals who attack him as a bigot, homophobe, and whatever else they can find.
It’s hard to miss my point, but you have done it.
I am calling YOU a pin-headed bigot.
Got it?
“It’s hard to miss my point, but you have done it. I am calling YOU a pin-headed bigot. Got it?”
I know perfectly well what you are calling me. And I don’t care. You degrade yourself, assuming that it is possible to degrade you.
You might be beneath degradation, too low to degrade. I can’t really tell. But I got a feeling that your attitude stinks.
Riiiight.
I’m off this forum, the low-life rabble are now crawling out from under their rocks. Thankfully no one is listening anymore. It was hard work keeping this from turning into a 100% rout of intelligence and compassion by the anti-gay bigots. Continue typing away, no one is listening. You might want more cheetos while you entertain yourself between yelling for mommy.
Sooooo, you can’t be a true Christian or conservative unless you support homosexual marriages?
Dang. Who knew?
This is nothing but a pseudo-conservative in sheep’s clothing. As son as I see the word “TOLERANCE” trotted out in an arguement, I know it will come to mean the conservative being tolerant of any abberant morality, but the liberal being relieved of tolerance for a conservative point of view. She is also wrong that the 10 commandments are 20% about sexuality, They are 100% about following God’s laws and HE has said homosexuality is an abomination and marriage is between one man, one woman and is for life. Seeing thses glaring errors made me stop reading the article from those points one. What a waste of Pajamas screenspace.
As usual, the gay argument is ridiculous and simplifies the facts.
Let’s look at some of the arguments:
CLAIM 1. Low Income, Inadequate Education, Lack of Opportunity
For decades homosexual activists have fostered the impression that gays are economically, educationally and culturally disadvantaged. Yet recent marketing studies, done by gay-run marketing agencies and boasting scientific accuracy above 99%, roundly refute those claims.
CLAIM 2. Political Powerlessness
Far from being politically powerless, allegedly gay activists have in recent years demonstrated enormous political clout relative to their numbers. Combining economic and educational advantage with high-pressure lobbying tactics, gay activists have ridden waves of tolerance emanating from the sexual revolution, plus the presumption that gays are some kind of “minority,” to a position of almost irresistible influence in today’s America.
Claim 3. Genetics
Simon LeVay, a neuroanatomist at The Salk Institute in San Diego, founded the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Education in San Francisco after researching and publishing the study of hypothalamic structures in men most widely-cited as confirming innate brain differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, as he himself initially argued. He later acknowledged:
“It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”
Even gay and lesbian activist sources say that the issue of gay “innateness and immutability” is in serious doubt. According to “Queer Nation” pioneer Jonathan Ned Katz:
“Contrary to today’s bio-belief, the heterosexual/homosexual binary is not in nature, but is socially constructed, therefore deconstructable.”
FACT 1. Promiscuity and Relational Instability
From perhaps the most comprehensive study of gay lifestyles ever undertaken before 1980, we learn that:
- 43% of white male homosexuals estimated they’d had sex with 500 or more different partners
- 75% had had 100 or more sexual partners; 28% (the largest subcategory) reported more than 1,000 partners
- 79% said more than half their partners were strangers
- 70% said more than half their sexual partners were men with whom they had sex only once
A study of San Francisco gay men published in Psychology Today (Feb. 1981) also reported that 28% of gay men surveyed had engaged in sex with more than 1,000 partners.
It is no surprise then that gays have enormous rates of sexually transmitted diseases, mental illness, high suicide rates and shorter lifespans,
Claim 4. Same-sex “marriage” would be no “leap in the dark” for society.
There would be enormous impact! These range from income tax and estate tax law, communal property ownership, inheritance and probate law, divorce and child custody regulations, and insurance benefits. Not to mention gay activist lawsuits against employers, landlords, school authorities, insurance companies, churches, governmental authorities and more which refuse to recognize same-sex “marriages.” Also the rewriting of business employment policies, insurance actuarial tables and government regulations at every level of society.
Activist Paula Ettelbrick, once policy director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, formerly legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (formerly the Lambda Legal Defense Fund), is tactically “for” same-sex “marriage,” but shares these caveats:
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so….Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society….”
And that is REALLY what this is all about — transforming society.
Claim 5. Same-sex “marriage” would not radically alter the nature of marriage in society
In his book Virtually Normal, Gay Marriage apologist Andrew Sullivan says this:
“..I believe strongly that marriage should be made available to everyone, in a politics of strict public neutrality. But within this model, there is plenty of scope for cultural difference. There is something baleful about the attempt of some gay conservatives to educate homosexuals and lesbians to an uncritical acceptance of a stifling model of heterosexual normality. The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.”
Sullivan says gays should not be pressed into the “stifling mold of heterosexual normality” (though the “straight” world has also experimented with “open marriages”-with less-than-happy results). But if gays and their relationships aren’t “entirely normal,” why should either gays or their relationships be recognized as legal “minorities” or equals of heterosexual marriages?
Claim 6. Churches, synagogues and other religious organizations would not be forced to recognize same-sex civil “marriages.”
“Shortly after the State of Hawaii passed S.B. No. 1181, its comprehensive “gay rights” legislation, Hawaii Attorney General Warren Price answered by letter an inquiry regarding the bill’s effects on religious organizations’ hiring practices as follows:
“Non-sectarian employees of the church, church- sponsored activities or programs are not exempt. This would include janitors, gardeners, teachers, etc.”
At present, Hawaii requires clergy to obtain a State license in order to perform marriages. The legal “machinery” is already in place to compel Hawaiian clergy to recognize and perform same-sex “marriages” or forfeit licensure.
CLAIM 7. Granting same-sex “marriage” recognition would not exacerbate the tumultuous struggle over “gay rights”; it would actually DEFUSE the conflict.
So long as gay activists can “claim discrimination” on some grounds, they can still use government and taxpayers’ dollars to sue others and advance gay activist interests. “Marital status” will serve as well as suspect status in many states for that purpose. Furthermore, if the Hawaii Supreme Court ruling that gender is a suspect class holds up, “married” gay activists will be able to claim discrimination on “gender” grounds wherever marital status is not a protected class.
In any event, same-sex “marriage” recognition will simply “grandfather” gay activists into a position where they can use government to sue resistors and opponents and advance their political and social interests, just as well as they might by wielding “gay rights” legislation. Thus the “gay rights” struggle will continue, though in a slightly different guise, every bit as fervently and rancorously as before.
One will search the Constitution of the United States in vain for a “fundamental right to marry,” or even for a mention of marriage. It is true that numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions have referred to the extraordinary significance of marriage; the High Court has called marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man” (see Skinner vs. Oklahoma, 1942; Zablocki vs. Redhail, etc.). But perhaps David Shapiro, managing editor of The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, has answered this argument as pointedly as is necessary:
“There’s no civil right to marry whomever you wish. Gay and lesbian couples aren’t the only ones who can’t get marriage licenses. You can’t get a license to marry your brother or sister. You can’t get a license to marry more than one person at a time. You can’t get a license to marry a 9-year-old child or your horse.
Every man and woman in Hawaii has the exact same right to get married. It just has to be to an individual of the opposite sex who is of age, is not a close relative and is human.
If men and women are treated the same, there’s no sex discrimination unless you hold that gay men and lesbian women are the third and fourth genders. There’s a lot of legal ground to plow between here and there.”
To oppose the aims of affluent gay activist special interests may violate their wishes and deprive them of undeserved status and benefits, including marital; it does not, however, violate their fundamental rights.
Marriage is the foundation of the family and the family is the foundation of civilization. It is the environment into which children are born, nurtured and taught how to become a part of the society at large. It is not something to be toyed with. A society rises and falls on the strength or weakness of the family unit.
Cultural experiments like the sexual revolution, no fault divorce, cohabitation, unwed child bearing, counterfeit marriage, civil unions and “gay marriage” all play a role in weakening the family by contributing to the view that marriage and family are redefineable or disposable.
Rather than correcting this problem, we in the West continue to encourage the family’s collapse. Turn on your TV and you will see the traditional family is nowhere to be found. Rather than encouraging society to return to the original model, the entertainment industry, influenced by liberal social scientists present only a dysfunctional view of family and marriage.
It’s very convenient for those of us in the West after having been raised within the stable environment of this social structure to then argue from the comfort of that environment that family should be redefined as we wish. It’s when the family is gone forever that we will then come to realize just how much it is missed. And I say that prophetically without apology.
For more information about the truth concerning the Gay Agenda:
Mass Resistance
http://www.massresistance.org/
“It’s when the family is gone forever that we will then come to realize just how much it is missed.”
If such a thing were to come to pass, I would be far more inclined to attribute it to secularization & the extreme decadence of many aspects of our culture (the porn industry, Hollywood, TV programs, etc.) rather than any “sinister” plans the gay community may be hiding up it’s agenda’s sleeve.
It is interesting to note that when a people open the door to a homosexual culture that the status and treatment of women becomes horrific. Maybe not just a this moment, but that is where it ALWAYS leads. The children don’t fare much better than the women either.
And this is not a ‘modern’ problem that we encounter. It is as ancient as one can go back. Like to Sodom and Gomarrah, we notice that Lot was willing to toss his virgin daughters out to the mob for abuse. So the ‘culture’ had even affected him. Lot was the nephew of Abraham, a most righteous man. But the culture corrupted him.
Dear Bellanut,to go along with something that’s wrong makes one just as guilty !!
will, you might want to check out the ground rules before you start calling people names. See Rule #3:
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
I’m not even going to read the article. Why the hell would you want to persuade someone to attend a religious ceremony of which they do not approve? A wedding is supposed to be a celebration shared with friends, not a political statement.
klp7843
Don’t be so fearful of truth. The facts are the facts and they can’t be buried forever. Look about you, look at other countries; is this the world you would impose on people? It is too horrible to imagine. To trade what we have…..for what?
That kind of world is not worth living in. Keep what is good and the hell with the rest.
Unintended Consequences in the Military and at NASA
When any governmental entity is involved, the line between intended and unintended consequences can be extremely fine, indeed.
Take, for example, the consequences of the repeal of the military’s DADT, the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy which required homosexuals in the Armed Services not to advertise their sexual inclinations in return for the military’s not inquiring, inquiries which could have resulted in their expulsion.
After extensive study of the deleterious effects outed gays would have on our troops and despite widespread opposition from Marines and combat forces in general, military powers-that-be in the Pentagon–predominantly ambitious officers who wouldn’t want to be perceived as opposing political directives–are set to officially lift the gay ban next month.
If gay agitators get their way, acceptance of homosexuals, turning blind eyes to their proclivities, not “telling” on them will not only become politically passe’ but de rigueur in the services via active recruitment.
The intended consequences being strategized by the LGBT set probaby isn’t exactly what the military intended.
According to the Washington Times, ”An underground gay group in the military wants recruiters to reach out to the gay community in the same way they target blacks, Hispanics and women.” The group, Outserve, representing some 4,000 homosexuals currently serving, is planning what the Times calls a “coming out party” in October in Vegas and wants the military to be on hand.
As one still-closeted Air Force officer put it, “The DoD regularly attends public events to recruit, and we believe they should be at Pride events next year around the country to let the gay community know the opportunities to serve their nation.” As one conservative commentator sees the agitation, it’s all part and parcel of what gay activists do: Push the envelope to the breaking point.
Robert Knight keenly observed, “No one should be surprised at what will be an increasingly shrill set of demands to use the military as an endorsing agency for homosexual activism.” . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5148)
The Perils of Rick Perry
What do former President James Earl “Jimmy” Carter and current Texas Governor James Richard “Rick” Perry have in common?
Well, they’re both Protestants although Carter is a Baptist and Perry a Methodist. They’re both from the South, although Carter was a Deep Souther and Perry is a Southwesterner. They both served in the military, Carter in the Navy as a lieutenant, Perry in the Air Force as a captain. They have both been married to the same woman for a gazillion years.
As for their differences, Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and was a failed president and is a bigger failure in his quest for a decent legacy in his post-presidency. Carter is an unreconstructed liberal and Perry a committed conservative. Perry has been a wildly popular, successful three term governor, and he terrifies Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats because he represents everything Obama isn’t and threatens everything they have wrought for the past 31 months.
They needn’t fear Perry since, as of now, he hasn’t declared for the Republican nomination for the presidency in 2012.
Nevertheless, true to form and recent tradition, Perry has already been the object of pre-emptive attacks by Obama’s hatchet men (and women) in the mainstream media on virtually every issue he has supported and for every value to which he subscribes.
A pro-life, fiscal and social conservative Christian, Perry opposes same-sex marriage, all of which positions would be considered more than sufficient reasons to arouse the ire of America’s pro-abortion, pro-taxation, pro-atheistic, anti-Christian Left. He compounds that ire by supporting the State of Israel, a policy anathema to liberals who favor Palestinian rights and all things Muslim.
Demonstrating an amazing hypocrisy, the Left has gone so far as to ridicule Perry based on his less than stellar undergraduate grades at Texas A&M. His transcripts were somehow obtained by one of Obama’s staunchest lackeys, the HuffingtonPost.com via an unnamed source and reputedly show he had a number of “C” and “D” grades, in addition to a few “A’s.”
HuffPo made no reference in its story on Perry’s grades to Obama’s refusal to disclose his Columbia University transcripts but did find space to print a conveniently-unsubstantiated comment by another–or the same?–source who allegedly said of Perry, “This was not the brightest guy around. We always kind of laughed. He was always kind of a joke.” (http://huff.to/qXGesb)
Perry has also been criticized for switching political parties. He was originally a Democrat and switched to Republican apparently for the same reason Ronald Reagan did. As Reagan once said, he didn’t leave the Democrat Party, it left him. That puts Rick Perry in excellent company.
However, what sticks in the liberal craw most and will no doubt be their prime future focus should he choose to run next year are not his political, social, or fiscal views, his previous party affiliation or grades. Rather, his adamantly-Christian religious views which he proudly wears on his sleeve and publicly professes from the podium will be used in an attempt to disqualify him. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5195)
I had freckles when a lot younger. The older girls thought I was cute and would pet me like a dog. I wish I still had freckles, but alas, there are no longer any freckles nor older girls around. I am conservative. I thought I was against gay marriage until one of my daughters got married in a same sex ceremony. I am still against abortion, however, even though another of my girls had to have one. Life is tough. Love your kids and friends and to hell with the proscriptions imposed upon us by religions or by custom.
Great blog. I think I saw a man like him, live on http://www.xboycam.com Thank you for the share. Take a look, please
So many times when I watch the news, read the paper or surf the net I am bombarded with an endless debate on the validity of State sanctioned “homosexual” marriage. Men and women on both sides of the debate angrily defend their side of its validity. They march with signs in public, lash out in editorials and even get violent in defense of their rationale.
I think it only fair to mention that I am a Christian. Just so you know where “my” morality lies on this issue. This is also to show the lack of relevance my religious view has (or should have) in this trumped up argument.
It’s constitutional, it’s not constitutional. This really gets to me. Let’s look at the Declaration of Independence for a second and switch the debate to a much more important track.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Who is it the pro-homosexual crowd and the anti-homosexual crowd both want to intervene here? It’s the State and Federal governments. I question the government’s privilege to intervene on either side and I charge a usurpation of my right either way.
We all have our eyes on the all mighty “marriage license”. Are you kidding me! Religious crowd you really have dropped the ball here. Webster’s dictionary defines license as “formal permission; official permit; freedom of action”. So that being stated who the hell gave the governments any business making marriage valid or invalid. If you need a license to do a thing then it stands to reason that doing that thing without a license is illegal. If my wife and I agreed to marry and do so without a license somehow it is less valid than it is for someone who got their State sanctioned license to marry. Sorry, but you suppose that God’s blessing is not enough by itself. Well if that’s the case why stop there; why not granting a baby-making license that could really generate revenue couldn’t it. How about a religious denomination affiliation license/tax? Want to be Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc…, just pay your ten dollar tax and the State will issue you your own “Religious Denominational Affiliation License”. Yes I realize this is going overboard and conflicts with the first amendment but being that marriage is a religious institution in itself, what’s the difference? If you need a license to enter into it doesn’t that conflict with the first amendment to begin with?
Amendment 1…. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance.”
Once again marriage is a religious institution and the government has a mandate to refrain from any constraints or expansions of it!
Why is it that when we have a conflict of opinions now days it has become a reflex to have big brother government step in to settle it? I for one would like to see, in nearly every instance, the government step further back from any issue at hand. If they were out of the marriage taxing business altogether, then who someone choses to marry becomes (as it should be) a morality issue.
As a Christian I would no more force my belief of who you chose to spend your life with than I would force my belief of who you chose to worship or not to worship. As long as it doesn’t infringe on my (or anyone else’s) human right you are free to pursue you happiness anyway you see fit. I can also openly disagree with your choice and with government completely out of the picture (other than protecting my right to voice my views) it becomes no more than opinion.
The Declaration of Independence tells me that we all come into this world with the exact same and amount of human right. Though our stations may ebb and flow your human right is no more or less than my human right. If you and anyone else team up, that doesn’t grant you a larger share of human right than I have alone. Think about it; a whole thing is only equal to the sum of its parts. Fifty thousand people teaming together still have no more God given right than I do alone.
Has it not been declared that my right is certain and unalienable; meaning definite and unable to be taken or even given away, and too, as the Declaration of Independence states: “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” So by our very founding document it is clear what the only purpose of forming a government is for (protecting our individual right).
Fifty thousand people banning together to force me to stop speaking my mind is usurpation plain and clear. Furthermore by my religion; if God grants me free will to pursue my own happiness, who do you suppose to be, to take that away from me? I may choose to turn away from God and He allows that to me. But you would force me to turn back? My how arrogant are you? Maybe you should refrain from force upon me, as long as I haven’t usurped your right and allow me and anyone else to answer for their actions, when all of our times come in the hereafter.
I just couldn’t leave your website prior to suggesting that I really enjoyed the standard info an individual provide on your guests? Is gonna be again often in order to check up on new posts
Hi there very cool website!! Man .. Excellent .. Wonderful .. I’ll bookmark your blog and take the feeds additionally?I am satisfied to seek out numerous useful information here within the post, we need work out more techniques in this regard, thank you for sharing. . . . . .
I would no more attend a gay “marriage” (I will not use the law to define marriage, but rather Scripture, and therefore it is not marriage at all) than I would commit sodomy.
I continue to see sexual acts between two men to be sinful, perverse, disordered and -yes- abnormal, no matter what the APA’s politically correct opinion is. And this is not a function of my age or the ultra-conservative society I happen to live in.
I am less than 30 and living in Europe… The difference is the strength of my faith in the Bible as God’s word to be obeyed.
comment