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.

[Darksheare]

Wow.. that’s almost to ludicrous speed!

[Darksheare]

Hey, you still alive, or are you just gonna lay there?

[Matchett-PI]

“Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic.”

[vox_freedom]

I did read your FR homepage, and it reeks of more condescension than I ever imagined. BTW, you seem to like Dr. Ronald Nash (RIP). An obit for him stated:

But Nash sounded an awful lot like the apostle Paul taking on the wolves. That's because both believed the gospel was more than an ideological parlor game for scholars. Real lives and real souls were at stake.

In the post to which you replied, I merely put forward St. Paul's professed views on homosexuality and the perversions it represents. Then your reply calls me an "embarrassment" and questions my "reading skills" for not reading your FR homepage. That's a good one. Seems your argument is with your own esteemed Dr. Nash, the Bible and Christian teachings, not with little jeremiah and me.
Or are you now calling St. Paul a Pharisee? That's thoughtful.

And your apparent, and undeniable, agreement is with a banned FR poster (to whom you posted support), not with true conservatives on FreeRepublic or St. Paul. Get a life or if you believe in the powers of redemption -- go for it.

[Matchett-PI]

Dennis Prager: "...Indeed, Judaism may be said to have invented the notion of homosexuality, for in the ancient world sexuality was not divided between heterosexuality and homosexuality. ..."

[Darksheare]

You want to tell me how turning a blind eye to this behavior in the name of appearances will do anything "Godly"?
After all, you don't want ot appear to be a hypocrite if you call that evil... shouldn't be judgemental and all that.

[Matchett-PI]

You are one of the most incoherent individuals that I have ever had the unfortunate experience to attempt to dialogue with on FR.

The experience is like riding in never-ending circles with a one-armed boat-rower.

Please excuse me, but I’m hopping out of your boat right now. bttt

[Matchett-PI]

The “arguments” you use are juvenile (both emotionally and spiritually immature). Grow up.

[vox_freedom]

Please excuse me, but I’m hopping out of your boat right now. bttt

After your personal insults, provocative postings, and pro-homosexual marriage contentions against the teachings of St. Paul, I ever-so-much welcome your departure. Thanks.

[little jeremiah]

Pure nonsense.

In the Manu Samhita, which predates the OT by a few thousands of years, punishment for same sex acts was quite severe. Marital monogamy was a great virtue in ancient India and deviations from it were considered crimes and sins.

Dennis Prager is unfamiliar with Vedic texts obviously, and you are following his ignorance for your own reasons.

[little jeremiah]

That you think vox is incoherent, when he writes consistent clear and well thought comments, reveals the state of your turgid and deceitful mind.

[little jeremiah]

LOL~

Darks, you could be a standup comedian.

Your own version of DUmmie Funnies for TrLoLs on FR.

It would be good!

[little jeremiah]

Jesus clearly does not want us sinners, who beg God for His mercy although (speaking for myself) we don’t deserve it for any reason other than that we belong only to Him, to condone, allow or legalize gross unhealthy, unnatural and immoral behavior in the form of same sex acts. Which were also severely condemned in his time. And before, and since.

Any simpleton can understand this.

From what I gather, you are using the veil of faux piety to slam those who stand up for moral absolutes.

Much more devious and deceitful than the regular old Pharisees, btw.

[Eva]

Yes, they want marriage because they want it as a wedge issue. There is no legal difference between civil unions and marriage, except the terminology. They aren’t satisfied because the bludgeon of political correctness is removed with civil unions. That’s it, that’s all the only reason.

[little jeremiah]

Correction - I don’t mean “for” the TrLoLs on FR, I mean ABOUT them - quoting them with your own worthy comments in brackets!

[little jeremiah]

You make no sense. What on earth do you mean by “wedge” issue? It’s a “destruction and power” issue, and civil unions will do nothing to stop them; on the contrary, it will only encourage them to demand “the real thing”.

[DJ MacWoW]

There sure have been a lot of pro-homosexual trolls on here.

[DJ MacWoW]

Stop using Scripture for pro-homosexual apologetics.

From the Boss: Post 93 Jim Robinson

FR is a conservative site. We do not appreciate our members fighting against us on our conservative values and issues. If you wish to support homosexual marriage or homosexuals in the military or hate crimes against us for speaking out against government promotion of homosexuality that’s your business, but you’d better do it somewhere else and not on FR. If you value your posting privileges, that is. FR is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage, pro-military, pro-traditional American conservatism and it is a privilege to post here. Those who support the godless liberal/Marxist destruction of our free society and our country are free to exercise their free speech rights elsewhere. I won’t stand in your way.

[little jeremiah]

Yes indeed and scathing humor might be just the ticket! Of course they’d all get pinged too. Hmm, could turn into a fun-filled BugZapper thread!

[DJ MacWoW]

What amazes me is that a few use God to sanction immorality.