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.

[RFEngineer]

“How ironic to use that choice of words on a pro-homosexuality thread.”

What is ironic about it?

[Eva]

I don't really have a problem with civil unions, either. My objection to using the term marriage is that gays are trying to redefine our culture by redefining marriage. It diminishes the institution and allows for a kind of thought control. A civil union is another thing altogether and in no way diminishes the institution of marriage and does not imply approval. It's a live and let live solution.

Obama is planning to bring back the marriage penalty for taxes, so there won't be any benefit for that perspective.

[Almondjoy]

My point is the percentage of people that have engaged in homosexual behavior is far greater than 2% Espically since the stigma is far less among women and actually encouraged by heterosexual men.

For example you can murder someone and have sinned.. renounced that sin and become a priest. You can turn from sin... I’m sure you realize that.

So yes.. you can have homosexual behavior but not be certified homosexual(meaning a commitment to relationships with the opposite sex).

[little jeremiah]

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites—in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity;—in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption;—in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere: and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
— Edmund Burke

[Almondjoy]

Exactly my point. Morality is subjective in all of us. Most of us don’t committ the major stuff. Murder, rape, child molstation. But we all committ some sort of sin. Homosexuals have decided religious or not that this part of their life is not amoral. They are wrong, but, that being said it doesn’t mean they are completely amoral. Not all homosexuals are capable of rape, murder, and child molestation.

Taking his higher than thou point is ironically pointless. We can defend meaning without resorting to nonsense. Even athesists share some sort of morality with Christians. Maybe Athesists agree that they shouldn’t murder someone for example. Those believes are clearly more rooted in socialital norms than they are in religious beliefs but they exist none the less.

[fishtank]

A bout a week ago, Michael Savage gave a great monologue about the danger of so-called “gay marriage”.

He reminded his listeners that a longtime Marxist goal has been the destruction of the “bourgeois” institution of marriage.

[vox_freedom]

Then quit being a dick, and ask a question if you don’t understand a point. I can be a dick, too, ...

How sweet...

[RFEngineer]

“How sweet...”

Oh brother...

[little jeremiah]

I said people with NO morals would do that.

---

You said:

Taking his higher than thou point is ironically pointless. We can defend meaning without resorting to nonsense.

---

What do you mean? What do you mean by nonsense?

[little jeremiah]

Civil unions are just opening the door to marriage, and homosexual activists have admitted this. Any legal stuff that civil unions do can be done already. Other than government recognition of some kind of “marriage lite” for health or other benefits.

[RFEngineer]

““Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites...”

Burke could not fathom that the colonies would create and materially support the government we have today. He would most certainly judge each and every one of us as not qualified for civil liberty - and he’d be right. We don’t deserve it (and we presently don’t have it as they did then).

The historic quotes from important minds of the American Revolution period are good and relevant - but they had a clean slate, having vanquished tyranny that was much less intrusive than the government we have today.

They couldn’t build America under the King of England. They did it without him.

[DJ MacWoW]

I can be a dick, too, and apparently I’m much better at it than you.

Well now! THERE'S something to brag about! You must be so proud.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” Anyway, this thread is only tangentially about “gay” marriage; it is about the importance or non-importance of normalizing homosexual behavior and most important - the establishment of “gay people” as a separate identity, with special protection under the law, that everyone else must bow to and accomodate “

That is correct!

[RFEngineer]

“Well now! THERE’S something to brag about! You must be so proud.”

A tough, humorless crowd today. If you don’t like my humor, why don’t you grab a beer, pop open and slide down the chute and go home.

There, was that funnier?

[vox_freedom]

There are plenty of professing Christians (of all spiritually immature stripes) who would like nothing better than to be able to use the arm of government

So, are you ant-Christian too?
BTW, both Jews and Christians hold similar social beliefs extending over several millenia, commonly referred to Judeo-Christian ethics and values. These values include opposition to abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia, court ordered killing of helpless individuals, etc.

So do you think it is wrong for our government to take positions on these Judeo-Christian issues?

[DJ MacWoW]

No. He wrote some laws in 1777 - 78 and would have changed it to castration. The death penalty held.

[Antoninus]

It's simple. They've been convinced by geniuses like Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt that the homosexual issue doesn't matter.

Some of these people are so smart that they're stupid.

[DJ MacWoW]

You'll be disappointed that I believe you when you say you're a d**k and really don't care what you think.

Have a nice night, uh, little richard.

[RFEngineer]

“Have a nice night, uh, little richard.”

.....I’ll be here all week. Try the lasagna.

[little jeremiah]

Any government - large, small, representative, direct democracy, ruled by nobility, etc will be miserable and ultimately devolve into tyranny when not founded upon basic moral absolutes that are eternal.

It’s quite simple. Even a simple mind can understand this.

(Why will it devolved into tyranny? Because without morality power becomes the only authority.)