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.

[little jeremiah]

Exactly. Communication involves enough respect for the other person to try to communicate clearly, explain when not understood, and to try to listen/read the other person’s points, whether agreed with or not.

Anyone who doesn’t do the above is engaged in mental self-play.

[DJ MacWoW]

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.

Stealing is not the subject of this thread and trying to change the debate means that you have no rebuttal.

[DJ MacWoW]

Anyone who doesn’t do the above is engaged in mental self-play.

Yes. Interaction was not the point. Mental self stroking was.

[CitizenUSA]

LOL. The concept of private property is ITSELF based on morality. Many people, leftists in particular, don’t share your beliefs on the sanctity of private property. They seem to place more value on community property. My point? I keep showing you again and again how law is nearly always based on someone’s concept of morality. In other words, government is always legislating morality.

[little jeremiah]

This is exactly what I have been pointing out. The goals of the homosexual agenda is to eliminate our natural rights of free speech, religion and association.

Those pushing “gay” agenda crap on FR either ignore that and keep bleating their nonsense, or leave the thread and bleat elsewhere.

They cannot deny that this is true.

[TheOldLady]

You’re quite welcome.

[Matchett-PI]

"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 to impose their personal religious conscience on others.... "for their own good", of course. (See my previous post (492) quoting C.S. Lewis, who understood that mentality perfectly.) They are merely the flip-side of the extremist left coin. bttt" ~ Matchett-PI

"So, are you ant-Christian too?" ~ vox_freedom

So, you read what I wrote above and came to the inexplicable -(because it's a non-sequitur)- conclusion that I am 'anti-Christian'?

With those reading comprehension skills you could click my screen name, read my profile page and still be able to come to the same conclusion.

"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?"~ vox_freedom

Here's your 'Constitutional' answer, combind with this accurate observation.

[DJ MacWoW]

They cannot deny that this is true.

That's why they change the subject and point elsewhere. As in "Why are you yelling about THIS and not that! Look over there!" LOL

[vox_freedom]

Your support of Sandy01 [RIP] and her/her statement:

"..Jesus may not have condoned gay marriage, but he was against oppression. His harsh criticisms were against the OVERLY religious....NOT the sinners."

pretty much tells us all we need to know about your views of Christ and Christianity. Christ wasn't harsh with sinners? Oh, really?

Maybe you ought to read some quotes of His regarding sinners before agreeing with someone that was just banned here on FR. Or maybe you think Christ wasn't judgmental about those who would condone homosexual marriage and other perversions? Really?

Better still maybe you should read some of St. Paul's published letters and words and get back to us on what Christ "believed," OK?

Here are some words to ponder in an interview with a Robert Gagnon (Robert A.J. Gagnon of the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, a graduate institution of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Gagnon is the author of "The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics" (Abingdon, 2001):

Gagnon: First, the prohibitions against same-sex intercourse occur in the context of other types of sexual activity that the church today still largely regards as illegitimate: incest, adultery and bestiality.

The strong prohibitions against these forms of sexual activity represent the closest analogues to the prohibition of same-sex intercourse. This is particularly the case with the prohibition of incest which, as with the prohibition of same-sex intercourse, rejects intercourse between two beings that are too much alike. Leviticus refers pejoratively to sex with a family member as sex with "one´s own flesh."

Second, the attachment of purity language in ancient Israelite culture to such acts as incest, adultery, male-male intercourse, idolatry, economic exploitation, and the like -- far from suggesting an amoral or non-moral basis for the rejection of such acts -- actually buttresses the moral focus on the inherently degrading character of the acts themselves. It underscores that any talk about the positive moral intent of the participants is irrelevant.

For the same reason, the Apostle Paul many centuries later connected the language of impurity with acts -- usually sexual acts -- that are rejected on moral grounds: not only same-sex intercourse but also adultery, incest, sex with prostitutes, and promiscuous sexual activity. [Gagnon later cites some texts: Romans 1:24 and 6:19; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; 1 Thessalonians 2:3 and 4:7; see Ephesians 4:19; 5:3,5; and Colossians 3:5.]

Third, unlike a number of the now-defunct elements of the Holiness Code to which reference is often made, the indictment of same-sex intercourse is particularly severe, as suggested by the specific attachment of the label "toevah" and by making it a capital offense.

Same-sex intercourse was regarded by ancient Israel as a particularly severe infraction of God´s will. Indeed, we know of no ancient Near Eastern culture that adopted a more rigorous opposition to all forms of same-sex intercourse. True, the New Testament and the contemporary church does not apply the penalty attached to this act in the Levitical code. But, then again, it does not retain the Old Testament valuation of adultery, incest and bestiality as capital offenses either, even as it still rejects such forms of intercourse as immoral.

Fourth, the prohibitions of same-sex intercourse are not limited to particularly exploitative forms but are rather unqualified and absolute.

I don't read ambiguity in these statements, do you? Or do you still agree with Sandy01?

[LS]

Libs have already spoken of silencing all GW “deniers.” That’s already in the works, but the Easat Anglia Climategate struck before they could implement it.

[Almondjoy]

Well of course it always had legislated morality. That doesn’t mean it should. There is a common sense approach to murder and stealing. However, I don’t see adultry or divorce criminalized. The one thing the left does have right is that we want to criminalized sodomy but refuse to criminalize adultry or divorce.

That’s why morality laws are subjective and never absoulte. That’s why we have to follow God’s laws ourselves and stop worrying about all the people that refuse to follow them.

[little jeremiah]

Excellent critique.

When people on FR lie or obfuscate or try to slither away from what they said, it is a boon that no one can edit their posts here!

Posting history tells the tale.

[Almondjoy]

Funny how you don’t mention adultry or divorce. You’re acting like a coward who’s great at pointing out other people’s failings but won’t admit his own.

Acting like a child doesn’t exactly put you on the moral high ground.

[Almondjoy]

Now who’s changing the subject? You want to twist the constitution to fit what you want as much as the homosexual community does. Stop being a hypocrite.

[Eva]

.....maybe, but it is really none of my business. I don’t really want to know what people do in their bedrooms, gay or straight. Civil unions create an opportunity to keep gays out of our lives as well and end the attempt at thought control and political correctness. It solves a lot of the social tension without making a moral judgment or bringing morality into the law.

I think that if civil unions for same sex couples became the law of the land, a lot of the tension would go out of the issue and many of the same sex couples would lose interest in legal unions of any kind.

[Almondjoy]

The whole point of this is that we are not suppose to be using the Constitution to enforce our beliefs which was not what the Constitution was for in the first place.

The Bible tells us to ignore those who place issue with the Bible and speak out against it. God knows that if they don’t want to hear it they won’t and it’s not our job to force convert them. We cannot pretend to force our morality on others and pretend that makes everything ok. they will have their day of judgement like the rest of us.

[DJ MacWoW]

The people that wrote the Constitution wrote the some of the state laws against homosexuality. Get a clue. Jefferson proposed castration. You know, the guy that wrote Madison and influenced the First Amendment.

I actually haven't mentioned the Constitution in any of my posts. Nice feint on your part though.

I am against special rights for deviants. I have said so in every post.

[little jeremiah]

Again, you’re irrational.

The topic is about the homosexual agenda, not the failings of people who divorce or commit adultEry.

I divorced because my husband abandoned me and two small children after beating me almost to death a number of times.

I don’t consider that a sin.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual activists themselves (did you read anywhere a list I’ve posted in their own words about why they want same sex marriage and civil unions, btw?) admit they want civil unions to usher in same sex marriage, and the purpose of both is to dismantle social “constructs” of what marriage and family mean.

You need to do some reading.

[DJ MacWoW]

The whole point of this is that we are not suppose to be using the Constitution to enforce our beliefs which was not what the Constitution was for in the first place.

Not one person on this thread has suggested that. Just you.

The Bible tells us to ignore those who place issue with the Bible and speak out against it. God knows that if they don’t want to hear it they won’t and it’s not our job to force convert them.

I haven't said anything about that either.

We cannot pretend to force our morality on others

That's what they want. To force themselves on others. I don't care what they do but I am against special rights for deviants based on behavior.