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.

[TheOldLady]

Wikipedia is an open site. You may edit the FR definition there if you wish. I’ve never done it, and I’m not sure whether you may change another person’s entry, but you can certainly add your own.

[RFEngineer]

“Your arrogance is only exceeded by your dishonest debating tactics.”

What, praytell, is dishonest about my debating tactics? Is me handing you your hat because you do not have a well thought out position dishonest?

You are the one that started getting all huffy and sarcastic. I just let you keep doing it, because it amuses me.

Be nice and I will be nice too. Be arrogant and sarcastic, and I’ll dish that back to you too.

[DJ MacWoW]

Come down out of the tower and walk among the people. Society allows things my grandparents would have never condoned.

[little jeremiah]

I’ve been debating moral absolutes including homosexual agenda stuff since 2002 on FR. I am tired of libertarians, which is apparently what you may fancy yourself.

As well, you enjoy baiting people.

As you noted, I am a simple person, and highly complicated and duplicitous people are no match for me.

[DJ MacWoW]

Since the 60’s it’s been on a fast downward track.

[DJ MacWoW]

Wikipedia just changes it back. It is a far left site and they lie.

[gogogodzilla]

As long as we allow the government to dictate what ‘marriage’ is... then government *WILL* dictate what marriage is - depending on the party in charge.

I say we return ‘marriage’ back to the religion that gave it to us. As ‘marriage’ is a holy sancrament, priests/pastors/rabbis/imams/whatever cannot change it’s meaning without defaming G-d.

And thus the institution of marriage is saved from the corruption we now see; a corruption solely caused by having the politicians get their grubby little hands on it.

[TheOldLady]

Sigh... Thanks for the info, Mr. MacWoW.

Sorry for the bad advice, Atom Smasher.

That’s what I get for giving instructions about a site I almost never even read.

[little jeremiah]

Screaming nosedive.

I was in high school in the 60s. Girls had to wear skirts, boys could not wear jeans. Kids were polite to the teachers or they’d get in trouble. Kids who drank and were wild got bad reputations. Girls who got pregnant usually went to homes for unwed mothers and came back afterwards having spent the last year “living with their aunt”.

I remember when a divorced woman moved in the neighborhood and I was so curious to know what a divorced woman looked like. Homosexuals? I had never heard of them.

Girls were encouraged to look forward to marriage and children. That was considered normal.

[RFEngineer]

“I’ve been debating moral absolutes”

You listed nothing that was dishonest as you complained.

I take it your personal moral absolutes don’t include everything you’d like to see in others.

[little jeremiah]

DBeers posted this on another thread. Says it better than I could.

May I suggest you miss a part of the equation.

Government established by the people under God recognizing unalienable rights endowed the people by the Creator and tasked with protecting such rights can NOT remove itself from the moral equation. To do so would be to retreat from upholding the very basis of our government and individual freedom.

The problem here is not that government is involved in morality -the problem is that government assists those who attempt to redefine it. Instead of government defending we government taking a backseat while at the same time assisting those that in essence seek to destroy that which is unalienable by redefining it...

Society chose to value, reward and protect marriage and family LONG before government came along -government simply carries out social mandate when for instance providing tax breaks for children and or legal standing in many regards between husband and wife. Government did not grant these things just as government did not grant life or liberty. How can government redefine these things that the Creator endowed us with? If the rights emanate from the Creator so do as well the definitions.

[little jeremiah]

I’m too simple minded to run around in circles with you. You can debate with fellow Mensa members.

[RFEngineer]

“Come down out of the tower and walk among the people. Society allows things my grandparents would have never condoned.”

You act as if bad behavior was recently invented. Society has had degenerate parts as long as there have been societies.

Neither morality, nor immorality is a recent innovation.

[DJ MacWoW]

There is a site called Conservapedia. It’s being built slowly and they are more careful about info. Wikipedia is George Soros’ baby.

[DJ MacWoW]

Yeah. I remember those days. In home ec we made aprons. Wonder if girls today even know what an apron is.

[RFEngineer]

“I’m too simple minded to run around in circles with you.”

If you are truly simple minded, you could at least be consistent. You appear to have no point that you are arguing - other than you don’t like the way I debate.

I actually think we probably agree quite a bit on the issue - but you let pointless personal animus get in the way, and have no sense of humor.

[DJ MacWoW]

Neither morality, nor immorality is a recent innovation.

Immorality is more common with each generation. My grandparents raised me and they'd be appalled.

[vox_freedom]

Neither morality, nor immorality is a recent innovation.

[DJ MacWoW]

You don't debate. You insult. I've "talked" to you before. I wasn't impressed then either.

Good night.

[gogogodzilla]

I would say that religion is the basis for morality. Government should be restricted to either following their lead... or simply recognizing the morality set by religion.

We, the people, should *NOT* be granting the government the power to set morality.

And, in my view, allowing government to authorize who may or may not get married is usurping the duties of religion. Considering that politics are inherently corrupting in the first place, this inevitably leads to the corrupting of a nation’s morals, too.