Posted on 05/26/2015 9:40:21 PM PDT by WTFOVR
Standing Athwart the March of History, Yelling, “Stop! Wait for Me!”
With its managing editor endorsing same-sex marriage, will National Review join the ranks of the Church's persecutors?
... For many of us, National Review is indispensable daily reading. It hosts many of conservatism’s most gifted writers. Indeed, The Stream is proud to publish columns by such NR stalwarts as Jonah Goldberg, Rich Lowry and Kathryn Lopez. This is why the publication of a long essay defending same-sex marriage by National Review’s managing editor Jason Lee Steorts is so distressing. Steorts defends both same-sex “marriage” and, by implication, sexual relations between people of the same sex. His isn’t merely the misguided but understandable libertarian plea for the state to “get out of the marriage business.” Rather, it’s a lengthy critique of what he calls, somewhat dismissively, the “traditionalist” view of marriage. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at stream.org ...
I was never a fan of William F. Buckley. His phony English accent turned me off.
Evidence, please.
And while he may have been in some respects, there is no way WFB - an old-school Traditional Catholic - would have considered sodomite faux marriage on par with what God ordained and sanctified.
I keep getting their advertising next to my emails. Very irritating but I just refuse to look at them other than to tell myself I need a new ISP.
If this is true, there’s absolutely no reason for NR to continue to exist. There are plenty of homosexualist magazines as it is. We do not need another one.
Unfortunately you can. And people do it every day. You just say a word means something and it does. Forget the truth of it.
Look how many feel it perfectly ‘conservative’ to support gays, vote for leftists and any number of 100% NOT conservative things. But point that out and the screaming starts.
If you track it, it paralells the leftist “Personal truth” mantra exactly. So what is the truth then? That it’s conservative/traditional/right wing to be a leftist or that leftists on the ‘right’ are redefining the language as Orwell spoke about in 1984?
Do you have an accent? Is it real, or is it Memorex?
“What is truth?” - Did not an ancient Roman Governor once utter such a remark to the Almighty? IIRC, things did not go so well for the aspiring relativist.
Doesn’t sound very conservative to me.
Buckley was a Catholic as far as going to Mass, etc., but he dissented from the Church’s social teaching. (But he was pro-life)
If you have proof that he supported homosexual marriage then post it, if not, then quit trying to smear the guy by trying to create the idea that he did.
“Andrew Sullivan appreciated the late William F. Buckley, Jr.’s civil tone on matters of homosexuality, especially as contrasted with other conservatives of his era, but laments that “Buckley never challenged what he believed was a necessary moral and social injunction against gay love, marriage and sex.”
“Sullivan quotes his infamous exchange with Gore Vidal, in which he retorted to being called a “cypto-Nazi” by calling his antagonist a “goddamned queer.” Less well known is what happened later:
Buckley apologized to Vidal, but wrote that “the man who in his essays proclaims the normalcy of his affliction [i.e., homosexuality], and in his art the desirability of it, is not to be confused with the man who bears his sorrow quietly. The addict is to be pitied and even respected, not the pusher.”
That’s pretty standard Christian theology.”
It would seem lots of relativists on the right really don’t care as long as their agenda gets passed/supported and like a 2 year old in full tantrum, they get what they scream for.
I subscribed to NR many years ago. I wouldn’t take it for free, now. It is sad to see a conservative magazine go so cheerfully into the pit.
Do you read English? I ASKED if he was against gay marriage, I didn't say he was for it. Please read before you post.
Sorry, my earlier post was not entirely correct. He was against abortion, but not sully pro-life.
I repeat my request for evidence in support of your assertions.
Hey jack-ass, your question has already been answered in post 21. Buckley was vociferously against same-sex marriage. He considered passing a constitutional amendment to protect marriage to be one of the most things the Republican Party could do to regain a pre-eminent position in American politics.
Did you read the rest of that sentence? “”If you have proof that he supported homosexual marriage then post it, if not, then quit trying to smear the guy by trying to create the idea that he did.””.
You are using some pretty sleazy methods against Buckley to advance your agenda.
Thank you.
LOL. I saw your post. I accepted it. The reply you were responding to mad an assertion that was incorrect. I can’t respond to correct them. I am not asking about Buckley anymore, so your attack is unnecessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.