First Rush, then Coulter, and Now Glenn Beck ... What’s Happening?

Life Site News ^ | NEW YORK, August 12, 2010 | Commentary by John-Henry Westen

[GonzoII]

Friday August 13, 2010

---

First Rush, then Coulter, and Now Glenn Beck ... What’s Happening?

Commentary by John-Henry Westen

NEW YORK, August 12, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Appearing on The O’Reilly Factor yesterday, famed conservative Fox News host Glenn Beck may have shocked many Americans by noting that he was not very concerned about homosexual 'marriage.'

O’Reilly asked Beck, “Do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?” Beck replied, “No, I don't,” adding sarcastically, “Will the gays come and get us?” 

After being pressed again on the question, Beck said, “I believe -- I believe what Thomas Jefferson said. If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?”  Showing his own surprise, O’Reilly remarked, “Okay, so you don't. That's interesting. Because I don't think a lot of people understand that about you.”

The Glenn Beck revelation comes on the heels of two other startling announcements by conservative celebrity pundits in the last couple of weeks.  Earlier this week it was announced that conservative pundit Ann Coulter would headline a fundraiser for the homosexual activist group within the Republican Party, GOProud.  And on July 29, although his position had been revealed before, talk radio host Rush Limbaugh again came out in favor of homosexual civil unions, while being opposed to same-sex ‘marriage.’

To be fair, it must be pointed out that Beck said he was looking at the ‘big picture’ and promoting faith, the answer to all such things.  Moreover, he added that he was okay with gay ‘marriage’ with a caveat.  “As long as we are not going down the road of Canada, where it now is a problem for churches to have free speech. If they can still say, hey, we oppose it,” he said.

But even to have suggested, as strongly as he did, that he was not opposed to gay ‘marriage’ is detrimental and demonstrates a ‘small picture’ approach.

Beck seems like a good guy. He’s thoughtful.  He’s right on many matters in the culture war.  For instance, when O’Reilly followed up and asked if Beck thought abortion threatened the United States, Beck replied dramatically in the affirmative.  “Abortion is killing, it’s killing, you’re killing someone,” he said.

So I thought it’d be worth it to calmly and persuasively share concerns with Beck on his approach.  He may not read my email, but I’m sure if enough pro-family folks were to get the message to him, he’d reconsider his outlook.

Here’s Beck’s email:

And here’s the gist of what I wrote:

Laws teach people what is right and wrong and thus homosexual acts will implicitly be given the stamp of approval where such legal recognition is granted.  The young will be given the false impression that this behavior is safe and acceptable, or even good.

Society has a duty to legally recognize and support married couples since they are, through procreation, the source for the continuation of human life and thus society itself.  Homosexual couples cannot properly procreate and thus have no such claim to societal recognition.

The question is not so much about marriage, but about homosexual acts.  The acts are harmful to the individuals who engage in them. They are harmful physically, emotionally and spiritually. 

With regard to persons engaged in such behavior or identifying with it, there must never be unjust discrimination.  All gay bashing, name-calling and the like should be condemned.  However, there must be discrimination on this front, a just discrimination, to preserve societal recognition for marriage between one man and one woman. 

URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10081315.html

---

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

[Yardstick]

State recognized gay unions would accomplish most of what you want. But a marriage license should be reserved to a man and a woman, since that’s what marriage is.

[Darksheare]

I’m using an example.
If you cannot understand that concept, this is NOT the site for you.

[DJ MacWoW]

They can wallow in all the filth that they like. But they have no right to demand that I approve of their choices through hate legislation. They have no right to demand special rights to change the meaning of marriage. Their rights END where mine begin.

Homosexuals are hedonistic by nature. They define themselves by their sexual activity. That is hedonistic. I don't care what they do. What I care about is being forced to accept it as normal. It is not. What I care about is that schools are forced to teach homosexuality is normal. It is not.

[Darksheare]

“Can you post me the link to rules that say opposing christian beliefs on the homosexual union argument are not allowed here?”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts
Fourth paragraph down, second sentence.
But you already showed that you won’t follow links with the link to the Folsom Street Fair.

[shattered]

Even conservatives don’t agree on everything. There is still room for healthy debate..and honestly, I believe that it is healthy to see and hear others viewpoints.

[Darksheare]

Habibi, a gay troll, take a look at the second response to the linked post.
In other words, SCROLL DOWN UNTIL YOU SEE POST 84 AND WHO POSTED IT.

[lady lawyer]

What is the line from the poem about vice? First we pity, then endure, then embrace? You are at the second step.

There is a big difference between recognizing that people who commit even vile sins are God’s children, and saying, “Okay, I guess what they’re doing isn’t worth getting worked up about.”

[InternetTuffGuy]

If marriage is redefined to include homosexuality, then by logical extension it must include bigamy, beastiality, polygamy, pedarasty, necrophilia.. etc etc etc.

That is not a logical extension. Queerosexuality is creepy, but it takes place between two consenting adults. Same with bigamy and polygamy (that latter, apparently okay with God of the OT).

Pederasty, bestiality and necrophilia are especially evil because there is the lack of consent.

I'm with Beck and Ann; I could care less what the queers and mormons are doing. We've got bigger fish to fry.

[Darksheare]

What does that have to do with my using an example that the gay apologist troll couldn’t understand?

[Sandy01]

This is fear mongering at it’s best. WE have laws protecting children and animals.
All sinners are “spirituall diseased.” The worst are those who judge others without recognizing that fact with deep humility.
Your sinning continues as do your rights. Yet you sit on your lofty perch of piousness and judge other sinners, throwing stones of legality at gays in denying them the same STATE benefits that you, as an equal sinner, continue to have.I refuse to hurl a stone at them. I am just as guilty as they are.

[Darksheare]

Yes, it IS a logial extension.
Because you are “Oppressing” the bigamists, polygamists, Beastility fetishists, etc etc etc by not letting them marry multiple times or marry their pets.
“Oppression” is the same argument used by the gays.
So the example still apllies.

[lady lawyer]

I mixed it up. It’s first endure, then pity, then embrace. You are at the second step, at least. Maybe the third.

[Sandy01]

Not all people will walk the narrow path. Do we punish them all legally so we make sure they NEVER see the love Christ offers. That will keep them off the path for sure!

[DJ MacWoW]

Even conservatives don’t agree on everything. There is still room for healthy debate..and honestly, I believe that it is healthy to see and hear others viewpoints.

Statement by the founder of Free Republic

Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.

[dragonblustar]

Oh, and Glenn is mormon and therefore does not see anything wrong with polygamy.... which will be next.

Glenn missed the point. He objected the idea of a gay bar near his place of worship. How is he going to feel if his church and others were forced to marry gay people?

[mnehring]

Maybe I’m a little confused here, help me out.

When you go in to get a marriage license, are you asked if you are gay or straight? I don’t recall, nor can I find that question being asked on any marriage license. I’m sure you would agree that currently, this question is not asked, correct?

There are restrictions on marriage that apply to all.

You can’t marry someone under a certain age.
You can’t marry someone who is already married.
You can’t marry someone who is a close relation (brother, sister, mother, father, cousin, etc).
You can’t marry someone of the same gender.

These rules apply equally to all and are completely blind to one’s sexual orientation. These rules don’t ask you what will ‘make you happy’, or ‘who do you love’; they are simply definitions of this specific contract.

How are these rules discriminatory against homosexuals when they are completely blind to one’s sexual orientation? They don’t say ‘you are gay so you can’t get married’. A gay person can get married just like a straight person- they just have the same rules as everyone else. No matter what a straight person, for example, may feel about another married person, he or she can’t marry that person. A straight person can’t marry someone of the same gender, for example, if they wanted some sort of benefit.

The rules are blind towards sexual orientation.

[Darksheare]

Oh, so it’s FEAR MONGERING?
Heh, really?
First they said they weren’t going to ban all guns, they were only going to ban ‘certain’ guns.
Then Feinstein and her crew immediately set about to try to ban.. all guns.
If you think that kind of “one toe in the door” action wouldn’t happen in any other avenue, then you’re deluded.

[UCFRoadWarrior]

It would be better to drop idolization of paid pundits.

---

Exactly.

Conservatives should think on their own, and analyze exactly what these “Conservative” pundits actually stand for.

When the so-called “Conservative” pundits starting attacking Birthers....I knew something was totally wrong.

I really feel for those who joined Beck’s “9/12” group, thinking it was Conservative. It is not.

[grey_whiskers]

“Go and sin some more” ...NOT!

Do you recognize the reference in that phrase?

I used it for a couple of specific, deliberate reasons.

Cheers!

[Darksheare]

I also see that you are ignoring the link to FR mission statement.