Posted on 03/21/2022 3:09:06 PM PDT by Ennis85
A question for fellow conservatives: What exactly do we stand for?
The left’s recent wave of culture war victories seems to have not only discouraged our commentators from talking about homosexuality, but also softened their conviction that it’s a grave offense against God and nature.
Progressives know that a neighbor’s “gay marriage,” Hollywood portrayals of same-sex romance, and adoption celebrations for same-sex couples, do in fact impact conservatives and society writ large. Their activism emphasizes the social sphere because, like conservatives, they’re realistic about the impact of social signals and role models in communities.
That’s why it matters when movement figures like PragerU or TheBlaze congratulate Dave Rubin on having children with his “husband.” Or when the Daily Wire, with its reputation for defying cultural headwinds, has an editor in chief who celebrates a same-sex engagement.
To be clear, this article is not an attempt to bash Rubin or any of the other right-leaning figures whose same-sex activities have been celebrated. It’s an inquiry into what happened to a movement that has long held homosexuality is unnatural, and yet is increasingly willing to compromise its values by praising activity it would normally condemn.
And for what?
What does Jeremy Boreing, who identifies with the Christian faith, gain from congratulating Spencer Klavan on his relationship with his same-sex partner? Is it to boost his relationship with Klavan’s fiancée who works for Daily Wire, or his father who has a show on the platform? Is it to appear more tolerant? Or is Boreing trying to assure Klavan of their collegiality?
Whatever his reasons, Boreing’s warm wishes necessarily entail the public approval and promotion of sin — one that, depending on Boering’s theology, he knows will lead to eternal damnation.
In that light, Boreing’s actions seems less like love and more like cowardice.
It would be one thing if the Daily Wire hosts — many of whom I admire — stayed silent on the reluctance to challenge our culture’s gender and sexual mania. But Boreing’s outlet routinely attacks Republican “squishes” like Elise Stefanik, who pushed the GOP last year to embrace “transgenderism,” and Republicans who supported Caitlyn Jenner.
PragerU, named after famed so-con Dennis Prager, also muddied the waters when it released a video in which commentator Guy Benson stated that one could be “gay” and Christian.
As a Catholic who struggles with same-sex attraction, I’m more than willing to acknowledge that the literal meaning of Benson’s assertion is basically correct. Attractions and actions are two very different things. One can’t be controlled while another can.
And while neither of the following are permissible, sustained commitments to sin are very different from indiscretions that partially result from weakness. Public, continual sin requires a greater act of the will, and therefore deepens culpability.
Unless I’m missing something, Benson and others aren’t merely “falling” into long-term relationships only to realize they’re immoral. Based on Benson’s own life, he and PragerU appear to be suggesting that concerted homosexual unions are compatible with Christianity — a heretical claim that clearly contradicts any plain reading of the Old and New Testaments. You cannot continue in unrepentant, grave sin and credibly say you’re living a Christian life.
But again, this isn’t so much about figures like Benson as it is about PragerU and others who publicly contradict their own advocacy, betraying fellow conservatives in the process.
At a more personal level, are we willing to signal to our same-sex-attracted brothers and sisters that their struggle really isn’t worth that much? That they can find edification in sinful unions — so it’s okay to pursue those regardless of the moral implications? Because that’s the impression one gets from the congratulatory messages on Twitter.
More broadly, are we willing to discard foundational aspects of our ideology— natural law and a reverence for Judeo-Christian morality — for whatever reasons Boreing might have had in mind when he praised a same-sex engagement?
As many have noted, conservatism has essentially become liberalism traveling the speed limit. Without natural law to anchor conservatives, what exactly is stopping us from drifting into all the decadent excesses of the progressive left?
If you’re willing to propose a version of natural law or biblical morality that somehow permits homosexuality, let’s hear it. But if you merely want to keep certain parts while shirking the unpleasant ones, you’re rooting your advocacy and your movement in sand.
You don’t have to be a purist to maintain a coherent framework of belief. This isn’t, for example, a conversation about tax credits versus strict laissez faire economics — or even about going too far on immigration reform. This identity crisis cuts to the core of the way we view nature, and therefore the society where it flourishes.
I am sinner who understands the struggles of same-sex attraction all too well. But the answer to this struggle, as always, isn’t license or a friendly nudge towards perdition.
It’s love, which always includes truth.
Perverts and RINO sycophants.
Leading Conservatives are not.
That poor motherless child.
It is hard to convey disgust and that mutilation of the meaning of marriage without seeming unkind to the innocent baby. But you gotta do it.
Bingo! Thanks for sharing that passage.
Sick.
Ancient Greece had adult homosexuals who were highly supportive of Greek culture and its ethos, while all cultures had them well integrated (the Mohave come to mind whose trannies would call their masculine counterpats cowards if they feared to go into battle tomprotect the Mohave’s nation women, children and way of life). In the US our “homosexuals” are called gays, however, which is an immature Peter Pan version which hates American adult culture. Various adult behaving lesbians have been excoriated by this lgbt wokistan of schizos, for example. Other homosexuals speaking for the nation’s defense or against sexualizing of children have similarly been excoriated by a pro-lgbt corporate schizophrenizing battalions made up of anti-maturity “heterosexuals “ and their gay schizo counterparts.
The conservatives should not so much reach out to homosexuals as to oppose the contingent of schizo heterosexuals who are hell bent on keeping homosexuals gay and the nation a morass of self hating pseudo-adults.
At your service
God bless you
Separating the wheat from the chaff. Narrow is The Way.
This is the same thing Repubs do for everything. They accept the false premises of the Left and only argue WITHIN that paradigm.
E.G., not just that homos are “OK” but that saying climate change even is bad is accepting their stupid premise. Conservs tend to fight not that there is CC or that it is automatically “bad” but they argue only about whether “man is responsible”. NO. we should be arguing the entire premise.
So your not a sinner and have stood up for the Lord everytime? Come on now...
That was not the context. I have not done what this guy did, that was the issue. Get you facts correct.
To purposely deprive a child of a mother is evil. There is no question about it.
Get your assertion correct. I was referring to not standing up for God every time which is what the Freeper was referring to not specifically condoning homosexual child purchasing.
some of us, me at times, hear an untruth. Instead of putting ourselves out there and defending God’s Word, we just let it pass because we feel unworthy or weak to fight in Jesus’ name.
I agree with you on that. We are all guilty.
Being a sinner and not standing up for the Lord was exactly the context.
Think again, not how I took it.
As a Catholic who struggles with same-sex attraction, I’m more than willing to acknowledge that the literal meaning of Benson’s assertion is basically correct. Attractions and actions are two very different things. One can’t be controlled while another can... Without natural law to anchor conservatives, what exactly is stopping us from drifting into all the decadent excesses of the progressive left? If you’re willing to propose a version of natural law or biblical morality that somehow permits homosexuality, let’s hear it.
Already blaming others, he's getting ready to turn.
Children have a right to a mother and a father rearing them in a loving home. Anything else short changes the child. The child is especially ill served when viewed as a commodity that an adult has the right to acquire.
How you took it is what the issue is.
Dennis Prager, for 50 years in the public eye, has been one of the very best and the brightest thinkers, but has long had a blind spot about homosexual behavior. When it comes to this subject, he tries mightily for logic, but fails. It sounds like that pattern continues.
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.