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.

[DJ MacWoW]

Dude the only thing you have in excess quantity is ego. Posters on this thread have disagreed with you and given very cogent reasons. You ignore them and keep posting pap. You sound like a liberaltarian. I have no use for your misguided and narrow viewpoint and won't respond again.

Have a good day.

[RFEngineer]

“Dude the only thing you have in excess quantity is ego. Posters on this thread have disagreed with you and given very cogent reasons. You ignore them and keep posting pap.”

Yet, you offer no examples. You have yet to articulate a cogent reason for any of your arguments. You are just blinded by animus.

“You sound like a liberaltarian. I have no use for your misguided and narrow viewpoint...”

You have no use for logic and reason, just emotion and whining.

“...and won’t respond again.”

The world is a better place without your vacuous ramblings, but I am quite sure that you will bluster anew - it’s all you’ve got, apparently.

[Atom Smasher]

Well if that doesn’t speak for itself, I don’t know what does, Lol!

My daughter has various sites in the favorites, & I just click on anything she’s got listed....I will be adding the “Free Dictionary”!

Heh LOL! Thanks.

[Darksheare]

Yeah, we sorta do drive by poster abductions to swell our ranks.
It's all subtle and very thorough.
Usually involves humor, and then you're caught!
You start responding to things in real life with ‘Mrrr?’ and other feline type sounds, and jingly things on strings become irresistible.

[SunkenCiv]

...or “hate speech” of any kind, including criticisms of Islam, linking Islam to Islamic terrorists and Islamic terrorism, or — my personal favorite — leftwing wrecker politics suck as the global warming scam and use of the RICO Act against abortion protesters. Thanks LS!

[SunkenCiv]

Whoops, I guess that was a Freudian slip — s/b “wrecker politics SUCH”. :’)

[vox_freedom]

Dude the only thing you have in excess quantity is ego. Posters on this thread have disagreed with you and given very cogent reasons. You ignore them and keep posting pap. You sound like a liberaltarian. I have no use for your misguided and narrow viewpoint and won't respond again.
Have a good day.

Good post DJ MacWoW, and I agree.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks YS.

[little jeremiah]

So, this isn’t so much about not legislating morality as it is about deciding whose morality gets legislated.

That's it.

[little jeremiah]

Their influence just needs to be removed, not them as individuals. There are organizations that can help heal them and they should be encouraged to seek help.

[DJ MacWoW]

:-)

[little jeremiah]

When people think that they are smarter than anyone else in the room, “conversing” with them becomes a tedious task. Especially when they engage in mental self-play at others’ expense, as though they are counting coup.

What to speak of using deceit.

[DJ MacWoW]

When a persons favorite conversation is their own, they become tedious to others. Good human interaction is based on sharing.

[TheOldLady]

Oh good grief. I guess Mr. Schlafly had no alternative but to use the Wiki system. It's probably all right so long as the franchise has no strings attached...

Now all Conservapedia needs is a Free Republic entry to balance the Wikipedia one.

[DJ MacWoW]

I was disappointed that they had no FR entry.

[Almondjoy]

I agree that the behavior is horrid but just because we don’t agree with some behavior doesn’t make it illegal.

We don’t agree with Nazi’s here but we do celebrate their right to free speech do we not?

[Almondjoy]

Meaning stealing is on the list of 10 commandments and i don’t see you ranting about how people who steal have absoultely no morals.

[Almondjoy]

Not true at all. Alot of laws are based on Private Property being essential to a free society. Therefore laws are based so that you cannot tread on other people’s property or bodies without consquences.

[little jeremiah]

This is the last time I’ll waste my time replying to you. You’re irrational.

I never said homosexuals have “no” morals. I said people in prison who sodomize each other have no morals. Or if they have any at all, precious few.

Anyone who practices sodomy, steals, lies, rapes, murders, assaults others, etc has deep moral failings. It doesn’t mean they have “no” morals.

I also don’t see “Thieves’ Pride” Parades or thievery becing taught in schools, with young kids directed to thieves’ clubs etc. Or Days of Silence supporting thieves, or thieves claiming they’re born that way and they have a right to live that way, and others being forced to rent to them hire them, prevented by law from criticizing them, etc. ETCETCETCETC

[DJ MacWoW]

I agree that the behavior is horrid but just because we don’t agree with some behavior doesn’t make it illegal.

In the beginning of our country, all states had laws against it. Virginias law had the death penalty.

We don’t agree with Nazi’s here but we do celebrate their right to free speech do we not?

Homosexuals don't want free speech. They want to legislate approval and force you to agree with their deviancy. They want SPECIAL rights that infringe on yours.