Get PJ Media on your Apple

Roger L. Simon

On Marriage — Again

March 26th, 2013 - 12:01 am

This personal story is anecdotal, of course — but it’s also real. And I suspect it is not terribly exceptional. Those homosexuals, I repeat, who aspire to marriage are a self-selected group, more so, perhaps, than heterosexuals, especially given the data I rehearsed above.

So when I listen to Hugh and Dennis, much as I love and admire them, they seem as if they are coming from another planet on this issue.  The horse has been out of the barn on gay marriage for so long it’s already lapping every track from Hialeah to Hollywood Park.

And guess what — nothing has happened to the institution of marriage, except, sadly, from those heterosexuals deserting it.  And that is clearly not the homosexuals’ fault.

Yes, I know that the Bible says this and that, but I am not going to enter into a theological debate.  (Certainly not with Dennis — I would be an unarmed man!)  I would ask, instead, for social conservatives to take their fight off the political playing field.

I have previously pointed out that they would be more successful persuading us gay-marriage adherents of the rightness of their cause outside that arena. It makes psychological sense.

More importantly, as a serial monogamist and devoted romantic about marriage, I would remind them to concentrate on the real problem.  Marriage is in serious jeopardy.  Pay more attention to that, not to a tiny minority who seek what you already have.

Also read: 

Could the GOP Nominee in 2016 be a Supporter of Gay Marriage?

(Thumbnail image on PJM homepage by Shutterstock.com.)

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
I like Roger Simon. I admire Roger Simon's talents. I appreciate Roger Simon and am very grateful that he was a founder of this forum, where I have been introduced to men like VDH and other wonderful authors plus a slew of really smart audience.

I sincerely hope this doesn't come across too harsh.

It is time I admit to an obvious truth. Other than the way we now vote and a grudging admiration of your talents even when you are wrong, I'm as far in creed from Roger Simon as I am from CNN's coven of witches. Sigh...

Roger, take it from someone that has been far more successful at marriage than you - I've have had exactly one and one only for 26 years which in all likelihood will end at the grave. The problem isn't with marriage. The problem is with people who view marriage as a relationship of convenience or pleasure or some partnered relationship, when marriage is supposed be holy, sacrosanct and completely unique. Healthy marriage goes beyond friendship, beyond even love. It is ordained by God.

And that is where you are dreadfully wrong about the very most important things in life and will remain in the wrong. You got your eyes opened a sliver by epiphany, but you still see through a partial lens. A shame for a man of your talents, and a shame for your progeny who will suffer the consequences of your foolishness that you apparently will leave.

And being guys like you are doing everything in your power to redefine marriage and are not being completely truthful about it, attempting to subvert the very historical definition of marriage and cornerstone of all of civilization for the sheer sake of emotional feeling, a motive by the way you roundly condemn elsewhere and call reactionary, I find this whole column to not only be lacking in truth, content and character...

...but disgraceful.



1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The question nobody ever asks anymore is "Why is homosexuality no longer considered a mental disorder?" We still consider pedophila, necrophilia, zoophila, etc. to be sexually focused metal disorders, what changed with homosexuality? If the pedophiles got a strong enough lobby together and got the modern Priesthood (APA) to give its blessing and declare it "normal" would we then lobby for Pedophile rights?

How about people with multiple personality disorders? Would we advocate marriage and the right to adopt for each distinct personality? I mean they are people too right? They are just corperally challenged by being forced to share one body with a bunch of other people. Why shouldn't each person living in that body have the right to be happy and raise a family too just like everyone else?

Most of the homosexuals that I have known have admitted to sexual abuse as a child. Others have severe issues with love, acceptance, and self esteem relating to their parents (an over the top example from a movie would be the son in Wedding Crashers). I'm no shrink but I do have ears and I'm a good listener, party with enough people and you hear a lot about their past. It's a choice, not a "Gee I think I'm a homosexual today." choice but rather like drugs (nobody goes "Gee I think I'm going to become an addict today.") or eating disorders. They can choose to engage in the behavior and their urges or not to. Thing is its a hedonistic choice, when you boil it right down the mechanics of fellatio and anal sex will feel the same from a man or woman. A gay friend once admitted that it was better since you were dealing with men whose sex drives & attitude matched your own and you could just "f@#$ and f@#$ all the guys you want".

I believe that many (not all) homosexuals have deep emotional wounds and that is why they end up as homosexuals. The claim that they are "born that way" is for most a self deception, if this were true could we not identify the gene that is the cause of homosexuality? What two (or more) consenting adults do in thier own bedroom is generally none of my concern, its when I have it rubbed in my face that this tyranny of the minority starts to bother me.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Conservatives should be grateful to gays. These days they seem to be the only ones who want to uphold the institution. - Roger Simon

This is just bogus Roger. The marriage participation rate of homosexuals in European countries that have Same Sex Marriage is very, very low, like less than 5%.

They dont want to uphold marriage, they want to normalize homosexuality. And the Marxist Left wants to both normalize homosexuality (polymorphous perversity) and degrade the institution of marriage to weaken the nuclear family...and increase the space and importance and dependence of/on the state to the individual.

I just cant believe that otherwise intelligent people that can suss out the Economic Marxist agendas, are clueless rubes when it comes to Cultural Marxist agendas.


1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (302)
All Comments   (302)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
I’m late to this discussion, & wish that wasn’t the case. I’ve been thinking about this issue for some time, and like everyone else on this forum want to weigh in & have my say.

I am not against same-sex marriage per se, but I‘d much rather see civil unions for the LGBT community, up to & including all the rights that marriage confers -- EXCEPT WHERE IT INVOLVES CHILDREN. Which is why I can’t use the “M” word for homosexual couples. Believe it or not, Mr. Simon, it hurts me to say this as I’d rather see children in a safe, loving home with long-term committed same-sex parents than bounced around the foster care system where (many times) no one even much likes them; families just need the $$ afforded by the govn’t for the children’s care to supplement care of their own.

I don’t believe being homosexual is a choice, mental disorder, or abomination. I do think it’s an aberration; a mutation of some type. I’m not sure humans will ever find a “gay gene/chromosome”, but there must be some biological reason for preferring one’s own gender. I base this belief in plain ol’ biology. The ONLY point of a living organism is the imperative to reproduce -- whether we’re talking about an insect with a 2-day life span, or humans with their possible century. I believe at some point scientists will find there is something that turns on/off, or gets too much/not enough of a critical substance (probably chemical in nature) at the right/wrong point in fetus development. This is not to say anyone identifying as LGBT have anything “wrong” with them or they‘re inherently “bad, twisted people“ -- but they surely do not fit the basic description of why any organism exists at all.

For those who have stated homosexuality is a choice, mental disorder, etc. -- preference for one’s own sex has been around since humans began recording history. Why would anyone choose this lifestyle that until fairly recently has been so shameful, hurtful, and in many cultures almost (if not in fact) a death sentence? The internal dread accompanying the “horrid secret” must be terrible and extremely distressing, until one comes to terms with it. That’s much more likely in today’s society, but then again, once the governor is lifted from a behavior, it’s impossible to then say stop at any given point, even if common sense tells us it’s now gone too far. Which is where I am at with the “gay marriage” debate. Does the LGBT community deserve to have recognized partnerships with the same contractual obligations as marriage? being able to visit hospitals (without “relatives only” restrictions)? inherit property/money? receive spousal insurance or support? make final decisions with/for loved ones? YES to all these questions. But NO to calling it marriage, which has long been to ensure a stable environment for raising children. By definition, LGBT couples can never reproduce together, that biology being completely absent.

I further think there is a reason most complex organisms need male and female cells for successful reproduction. Current theories suggest microscopic creatures who asexually reproduce may have short term benefits when rapid population growth is important or in stable environments. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction) On earth, though, how many strictly unchanging environments are there? Therefore input from 2 individuals is deemed the best approach to have as much genetic diversity as possible, thereby allowing faster adaptation to change.

Leaving the biological issues aside, we need to look at psychological concerns. I will never understand how, such as in Mr. Simon’s son & his partner’s case, men can teach little girls how to grow up to be women. Showing & leading them to be good people in general? Absolutely … but what it means to be a woman? Nope. Same with women trying to pass along what it means to be a man. In short, there needs to be as much diversity of opinion and division of labor in this arena as there is in the biological, which necessarily means male and female.

It appears the Republican (conservative) tent is simply not large enough to accommodate everyone who, even while believing most of the party line, has 1 personal hobby-horse in direct opposition. For Mr. Simon, it’s gay marriage. For my husband, it’s illegal immigration. For me, it’s abortion. I don’t see why Repub. Party feels they must be so hard-line. Why can’t they be like Glenn Beck’s “9/12 Project”? (where if you believe in 9 of 12 items, hey! you belong with us!) It seems like that attitude would serve much better, esp. to attract more & more Independents and Libertarian-lite folks.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The gay marriage horse has been out of the barn for, what, about 20 years? The institution of heterosexual marriage has been the foundation of every society on Earth for thousands of years. How presumptuous and arrogant of our modern political liberals to claim that they have a right to change the definition of that foundational institution. And how morally weak of you, Roger, to presume he authority to tell the rest of us we should cave into that arrogance simply because your son is gay. He may be the center of your universe, but that doesn't make him the center of everyone else's!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Succinct as always. But why should married folk get govt money and inheritances, single folk not? Unless someone is victimizing others, govt has no biz pushing them around like a performing circus animal. Govt should focus on protecting citizens and butt out of ALL social engineering.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Most conservatives would like to abolish the death tax which would render the argument moot.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Dear Tex,

Sometimes The Almighty whispers and sometimes The Almighty shouts.

http://www.chabad.org/calendar/view/day_cdo/aid/272761/jewish/Sodom-Overturned.htm

In other words my dear friend the DAY , March 27th 2013, marked, according to the calendar of the Jewish people, the anniversary of the destruction of Sodom and Gmorah.

Fear of Hashem is the beginning of wisdom.

Blessings from Yerushalayim

Menachem
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Roger, everything you wrote above was brilliant, true, and heartfelt, but as you should know by now from reading the comments that a large portion of the "Conservative" movement is a lost cause on marriage equality. These are the same folks who opposed racial equality, interracial marriage, and a whole slew of other constitutional liberty interests because of fear, anger, and reliance on the Bible. Like any unhealthy relationship, at some point, you're going to have to just walk way and make a clean break from these folks, or they're just going to continue to drag you down and disappoint you. Let them go, Roger.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"These are the same folks who opposed racial equality, interracial marriage, and a whole slew of other constitutional liberty interests because of fear, anger, and reliance on the Bible."

Wow. This comment caught me by surprise. Your comment is, overall, mean-spirited, and your points are thoughtless. You have no idea what you're talking about.

I can tell you for a fact that you have no idea of the character of those whom you denounce. And yet you coarsely malign those commenters to whom you refer, personally disparaging them. This is the face you want to present to supporters of traditional marriage? I think you should think again.

And you attribute heterosexual marriage proponents as acting out of fear? You have no idea what you are talking about. Seriously. You sound like you haven't thought beyond the popular propaganda – and of course, perhaps you have a personal vested interest in the outcome, as Roger does.

But you have no sense of history. And you have no idea what marriage is. You think it’s what you’ve seen in the US in your lifetime. But it’s not. You want something new in our culture? Why don't you call it litigio-technical embrasure. But don't call it marriage. Because it's just not.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Tryin' to get ol' Rog back on the pipe, eh?

You probably know this already, but the moment a man discovers the meaning of conservatism and feels it in his bones, nothing else will satisfy, no matter all the blandishments of the pack, promised or otherwise. What a coup it would be to bring him back into the fold, I'm sure.

Now, whether or not Mr. Simon decides to go back to the soft comforts of the collective and the broad approval of lesser minds harboring greater needfullness or, instead, he simply decides that this issue is not immediately reconcileable with his larger philosophy, we can always count on the likes of your ilk to offer a respite in a spider's embrace.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Being married three times does not indicate you are an expert in marriage, in fact, quite the opposite.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"But I am, in my own way, an expert in marriage. We all are. And we’re all idiots about it too."

Okay, I have to say it. This is part of the disingenuity that I mentioned earlier. It's like saying: Everyone is in the 99th percentile of drivers, but we're all crazy to pull out on the road. Some drivers are faster, some drivers are smarter and some drivers are more courteous than others. Having crashed two cars before you learn how to drive does not make you an expert driver. But it may make you an idiot (Roger's choice of words, not mine).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Flicker, is the car thing a metaphor for the current topic? (Just wondering!)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I thought it was. You don't think it was clear? If you're serious, I'll explain. Roger begins his article, with the aphoristic words: "But I am, in my own way, an expert in marriage. We all are. And we’re all idiots about it too."

This is patently false, but Roger writes it anyway, for a particular effect. He's a professional writer, and a dialog writer at that. He knows what he's crafting. He begins by saying, in effect: "Look! Everybody gets married. We can't help it. We all know marriage up close and personally. But nobody, any of us, really knows what it's really is about, or how to do it right. We blunder through it and hope to have a good ride."

In other words, he minimizes marriage, and the possibility that anyone can know more about it that he does. And from that false basis, he goes on to make his own personal points.

But to say that has entered and left marriage a few times and that because of this he is in some way an expert on marriage is a lot like saying I have wrecked a couple of cars in my life, and believe me, that makes me an expert. Boy! Let me tell you! Whew! I've crawled out of a crumpled SUV that Copperfield couldn't have gotten out of. Whew! My last wreck was so mangled, they had to use dynamite just to neaten it up! Whew.

But there really are guys out there who have been married only once in a marriage that has lasted many, many years. And they know something that others who quit and quit again can't know: the very least of which is what it's like in your third or fourth decade of marriage. You can see it in others, but you can't really know what it takes unless you've done it.

If I misunderstood your question, well then, nevermind.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I mentioned the reader response to Roger Simon's interesting post in my own meditation upon power in gay or heterosexual attachments, that complicates the debates. See http://clarespark.com/2013/03/27/power-in-gay-andor-heterosexual-attachments/.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It would seem that the inestimable Mr. Simon - on whose wisdom and intellect I've heretofore yielded - has had his own ox gored. Or sacred cow besmirched. Name your cliche. After all, it hasn't been but a few weeks since a Republican (Otherwise Conservative!) congressman became "enlightened." (Shortly after finding out a close relative had come out of the closet!)
It is a universal truism that a, say, pro-execution proponent is someone who just had a loved one murdered, while an anti-execution proponent is someone whose loved one was just GIVEN the death penalty for the same act. In other words, we're all pretty much lynig, theiving or bargaining scoundrals. Many of us just haven't found our price yet! Patience, my friends. (That would be a similitude for "Never say never!")
I do think, however, Mr. Simon should have had the good grace to practice his peculiar brand of "conservatism" in a venue less compromising to the audience (And consequent respect) he otherwise commands than to foist it upon the good patrons of PJ Media.
To me, at least, that is tantamount to disputing MADD because, after all, YOU only had TWO drinks before ramming your car into that bridge stanchion! Or, again, exercies your imagination and provide your own simile of ironic philosophizing.
In any event, Roger, I am depressed. And I wish your future credibility much success. All considering, that is.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I will only say that it is amazing how many people base their opinion on same sex marriage based on who in thier family has "come out". I have all the respect in the world for Mr. Simon, but I believe he is tragically mistaken on this issue.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
That is because Roger would have to admit that his life choices have impacted those of his son. As I said elssewhere many of the homosexual men I've known over the years had been sexually abused or have serious issues with their parents. Many women have the same issues, especially abuse. It's not surprising that men with multiple divorces have children with this disorder, nor is it surprising that people who are career politicians end up with children who suffer as well due to the pressures on the family and the time they must spend away from the family.

Please note that just because I'm being brutally honest that I don't believe that Roger (or any parent of a person suffering from this disorder) should love or think any less of his child. For some children it's those feelings of inadequacy, feeling unloved, and unaccepted that got them there in the first place. Don't compound the issue with further rejection of the person even if you reject their choices.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It is interesting to me that Roger Simon will not enter into the fray, ever. Richard Fernandez will, Stephen Green will, but Roger Simon will not descent from Mount Olympus to discuss these things with us. He has spoken and he is done with that bit.

I could understand better if he was dealing with just trolls, but even those that disagree with him could not call Tex Taylor a troll, it wants a response; that there is none forthcoming is a response in itself.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
That was uncalled for.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I accept your judgement.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All