No Gay Mormon Left Behind

The other night I saw another debate on the topic of gay marriage. The debate was between Robert Jeffress, an opponent, and Wayne Besen, an extremely gay activist. It was the kind of lame debate I’ve come to expect lately on the Fox News show The O’Reilly Factor. In fact, nothing interesting happened until the last few seconds of the six-minute segment when Besen characterized the debate’s first legitimate point as “crazy.”

Jeffress argued the point many opponents argue when he said that gay marriage could lead to polygamy and even to marriage between a man and his pet. When Besen reacted strongly with the interjection “that’s crazy” he was saying more than that polygamy and man-beast marriage will never happen. His strong emotional reaction indicated a belief that those two things should never happen.

Besen’s strong reaction showed that he and Jeffress agree on more than they realize. The point is best illustrated by listing the four forms of marriage mentioned on the Factor segment, which was hosted by Juan Williams:

2. A union between one man and another man – or, alternately, between one woman and another woman.

3. A union between one man and two or more women – or, presumably, between one woman and two or more men.

4. A union between one man and an animal – or between one woman and an animal.

Jeffress and Besen actually agree on the proper legal status of three of these arrangements; namely, that #1 should remain legal while #3 and #4 should remain illegal. They only disagree on the legal status of arrangement #2. In other words, Besen is just trying to get Jeffress to accept one-half, rather than merely one-forth, of the above arrangements. Of course, we all know why Besen wants him to do this. It is because to do so would be an expression of “tolerance.”

While the casual observer may comprehend quickly the reason gay activists like Besen want to expand the definition of marriage, there is no real indication why they would not want to expand it further. And there is little understanding of why Besen would react so strongly to an even more inclusive definition of marriage. If one can be morally superior to another by being more tolerant why not be really morally superior by being really tolerant?

The problem with the segment was really that its moderator Juan Williams seemed overly sympathetic with Besen to the point where he could not ask rather obvious questions. Had he done his job, Williams could have gotten a decent explanation for Besen’s opposition to #4; namely, that no union between man and animal could be legitimate because the latter cannot offer voluntary consent. That’s simple enough.

But things get more complicated when the advocate of gay marriage tries to explain his moral superiority in relation to the polygamist. And this is good because it helps us pause and focus the debate on the current rift between members of the gay community and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or Mormons.

The real difference between the typical Mormon and the typical gay activist was on display when Besen challenged the notion that Pastor Rick Warren loves gay people. In disagreeing, Besen said that Warren only wanted to “pray away the gay.” And he said this in a tone dripping with sarcasm.

Anyone who rightly calls himself Christian recognizes that he has all manner of anti-social impulses – to attack others, to lie, or to steal – and he welcomes those who would offer prayers to attenuate these impulses. But the gay activist isn’t so welcoming. He just gets offended.

Today you never hear the phrase “assaulting American”, “lying American”, or “stealing American.” But the term “gay American” is commonplace. That is because most gays have no interest in curbing their impulses. They not only act upon them but allow their expression to become the principal basis of their identity.

When the Mormons were told in the 19th Century that they had no right to polygamy, they decided to modify their religious practices and curtail their sexual behavior. That is why today they are among our most valuable citizens. But gays in the 21th Century have responded to similar dictates by storming into churches and impeding the religious rights of their peaceful neighbors.

I don’t really care where gays get the impulses underlying their sexual identity. But I do ponder the origins of their smug moral condescension.

For the left, ‘tolerance’ means getting conservatives to abandon principled beliefs. The left NEVER abandon any principle belief they hold. They just get there a little slower via incrementalism, their ability to get us to cave in a bit at a time, finally gets them what they want.

We need to start exposing this and calling them on the carpet every time they play this card. We need to expose the shady tactic. The shady tactic is appearing to make a phony plea for ‘tolerance’ which only requires the conservative to completely abandon their belief.

It is simply a way for them to use the Hegelian Dialectic and the Delphi Technique to take two opposing views, and from them, either get the person to agree with them, or if not that far, to synthesize a compromise position that still takes the conservative off their view.

Under the guise of tolerance they get their cover. “Why, who wouldn’t want to be tolerant? Are you just a mean person? Haven’t you stopped beating your wife yet? Can’t you move an INCH from your objection?”

You have to take them off the specific issue and explain to people exactly what they are doing. The ony way I can be ‘tolerant’ is to abandon my belief. They are trying to frame the issue. They win no matter what. They have no compromise to make, it’s only me. My compromise gets them closer to their goal, and it takes me away from mine. If I refuse to compromise, since they have already framed the issue as a tolerance issue, I automatically become intolerant and now they can begin the demonization process of myself and my position. If I cave in, they get closer to what they want, they have not compromised a bit, they have gotten me to move towards their idea, and off mine. They remain true to their principle, I have abandoned mine. This is called the Delphi Technique, which is nothing more than framing the debate to the outcome you want to happen. If you can get the person to compromise, you win because they are now closer to what you want to happen and you can praise them for being tolerant, being enlightened, etc. If they don’t, because you framed this as a tolerance or fairness issue, now you can go after them as being intolerant and hypocritical without fear anyone will come after them for unfairly demonizing the other side. They will use the opportunity to use a broad brush and paint everyone who opposes the issue as intolerant and unfair.

Now you understand the Delphi Technique, and what this person is trying to accomplish.

Give you a good example. Abortion.

Pro-life position would be no abortions under any conditions. The pro-abort opposing view would be abortion on demand for any reason.

One side is NEVER in favor. One side is ALWAYS in favor. Absolutes in opposition.

The Delphi Technique is utilized by the pro-abortion side. As a matter of a fundamental right to health care. As a matter of a right to privacy. As being fair, giving people control over their own bodies.

“So you’re not for giving women fundamental health care?” “So women cannot control whether or not they want to have a child?” “So even if a neanderthal troglodyte rapist rapes your wife, you wouldn’t let her terminate a pregnancy from the rapist?” “How uncaring and unfair are you?”

They have just framed the issue and can win either way. If you cave, you are off your NEVER belief. That is a huge win for them. They have not compromised ONE BIT but have made you abandon your principle. They now just have to keep working on you incrementally and continue to get you closer to their viewpoint. And now that they know you are weak enough to cave, it becomes easier to get you to compromise, either through threat of humiliation/demonization, or praise for being open-minded enough to enlighten yourself on the issue.

They can win the second way if you stay on your belief because then, because of the premise they have put out there (fairness, tolernace, etc) because you have not compromised, you automatically become intolerant, mean, unfair, etc. They can say it more like a fact rather than an attack, because the premise was already floated out there during the discussion.

You have to reject the premise when it is tossed out there. If one is intolerant and unfair by sticking to their belief and not compromising, then they could equally be intolerant and unfair because they are not giving anything up. They are not moving towards my position, they are attempting to incrementally move me over to theirs. And if I don’t, they attempt to paint me and those who hold my view as bad people.

The other thing is that you need to put the argument back on the issue at hand. It isn’t about tolerance or fairness, etc. It is about the principle of “x” (in this case, the sanctity of human life). It is about protecting and defending human life in any and all conditions, shapes and sizes. And make a point that some issues are not ones that can be compromised. And get it back on the substance of the issue at hand.

When you have an issue that is an absolute, a great analogy is to say, If we were debating taking something that was a lethal poison, and I was against it totally, and another person was debating people should take it, if I compromise my belief, who is closer to getting their belief implemented? What if I say I can accept poisoning under certain conditions, or if I say I would accept putting 1% poison in all foods, as a compromise with the other side? Who has really compromised here, them or me? Me. Now all that needs to be done is to keep expanding the conditions, broadening them, or increasing the percentage of poison in food over time. Eventually one side wins. And it isn’t mine. I have stood up for nothing, the other side never compromised but got me to.

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.