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]

“Your words...”

Yep. Did you have a point?

[DBeers]

Yep. Did you have a point?

It is obvious -my point has been made repeatedly.

You conceded as much when you lost your composure and retreated from directly engaging the argument instead focusing on me and then only implying passively what at first you vigorously espoused e.g that 'truth' I won't admit...

Check Mate -your arguments have been kicked to the curb like so much refuse --DUDE...

[RFEngineer]

“Check Mate -your arguments have been kicked to the curb like so much refuse —DUDE... “

Yes, I’m so humiliated that I can’t measure up to your fictional argument that you invented in your head and didn’t bother to tell anyone about.

I’m sure right now you are preparing a clever retort to the next thing that I never said.

Keep up the good work.

Now will you go away?

[DJ MacWoW]

Now will you go away?

Why don't you walk away? Or do you really need to have the last word?

[RFEngineer]

I don’t want your friend to think that I didn’t take his posts seriously. I am giving them all due consideration, can’t you tell?

What are there 4 of you poor misguided souls on this thread?

All 4 of you argued arguments on this thread that were never made, at least by me.

It would have been nice to discuss the role of Christianity in the present government, and contrast that with the ideal, as articulated by our founding fathers. It was too much for you.

Next time I’ll dumb down my argument. Maybe that will help you and your friends understand that we were on the same side of this debate, and our only difference was an understanding of “why”.

[little jeremiah]

At least they just talk and don’t make comments online.... I hope!

[little jeremiah]

You deserve an award for dealing with this online approximation of a monkey throwing feces at a zoo.

[DJ MacWoW]

All 4 of you argued arguments on this thread that were never made, at least by me.

I never claimed that you said anything. I simply disagreed with what you did say. And because none of us agree with you, instead of debate, you insult. Anyone who disagrees with you is called stupid. That's not debate. That's ego screaming.

It would have been nice to discuss the role of Christianity in the present government, and contrast that with the ideal, as articulated by our founding fathers.

The early fathers of our country did not believe that the federal government had any religious role. Jefferson declared days of prayer and fasting as governor of Virginia but resisted doing so as President. He did not believe that was a Presidents job. That all the Founders were God-fearing men is a given. That few in DC today even know who God is is also a given. What's there to discuss?

No one wants to talk with you about anything. You are too rude.

[Captain Kirk]

Beck was talking about the role of the law not whether he is “cool” with everything people may do.

[vox_freedom]

You really should quit when you are behind. After all, your post @ #499 took it all to the top level.

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

We should all agree with your self evaluation of yourself, and after 800+ posts you can take your "D" title and go home with it.

Whaddaya say? Or do you always need to have the last word?
My supposition is that you just can't shut up...
Prove me wrong. Go ahead.

[little jeremiah]

They’re very slippery like greased snakes. The very epitome of deceit and duplicity. That’s what gets me. Honest debate with someone who disagrees but is respectful enough to communicate their own POV as clearly as they can and reply authentically to what is said is a completely different experience.

The examples on this thread are like trying to debate with a moving pile of quivering slime.

[DJ MacWoW]

I don’t believe debate is the point. I believe that ego trip is.

[little jeremiah]

Zoo, monkey, throwing poo....

[DJ MacWoW]

Posters hijack the thread too. Then it becomes all about them.

[Almondjoy]

I’m not angry.. I’m just pointing out that your views are just like liberals. You want to push your agenda not in favor of the consitution but in favor of your own beliefs.

Conservative.. you’re not even close.

[vox_freedom]

I don’t believe debate is the point. I believe that ego trip is.

[Almondjoy]

So to go back to your post.

I’m glad that you that are for laws that are against adultry and divorce. Since that is deviant behavior as well.

Or are you going to try and wiggle your way out of it again?

[vox_freedom]

They’re very slippery like greased snakes. The very epitome of deceit and duplicity.

[DBeers]

It would have been nice to discuss the role of Christianity in the present government, and contrast that with the ideal, as articulated by our founding fathers. It was too much for you.

Next time I’ll dumb down my argument. Maybe that will help you and your friends understand that we were on the same side of this debate, and our only difference was an understanding of “why”.

Your people skills need some work (and after this you should know it).

I recommend the following book: "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" by Stephen R. Covey.

One of the habits is:

Habit 5. Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood

Suggesting the listener is unable yo comprehend your message e.g. stupid -is not being effective --it is NOT effective communication. IF your goal was to sell a position you failed. It was all you as far as failure...

I myself sought to understand and as a result stated agreement on almost all -save one issue.

I would hope this a learning experience...

[little jeremiah]

Ooookay.

How is it that there were laws against sodomy - aka homosexual acts - for the first say 200 years of our country? And the men who discussed, wrote and signed the Constitution all were fine with that?

And I’m not saying that “homosexuality” should be illegal, nor did they. Laws against sodomy were against the act, not against any group of people, because the very idea of a group identity of “homosexuals” had not yet fermented in the minds of any perverts yet.

There were no laws “against” same sex marriage as no mentally ill people clamored for it, and if they had, people would have laughed and then paid no attention.

This topic has nothing - zero - zilch - nada - with “my own beliefs”. Not changing the definition of marriage to mean “two men or two women getting married” has to do with immutable natural law, morality as inculcated in every religion in the world, historical precedence for thousands of years, psychology, health, the will of the people, and probably I could think of more, say tomorrow morning.

My beliefs or your beliefs have nothing to do with objective reality. People can choose to mold their beliefs in accordance with reality, or they can fight reailty.

I choose to accept reality and make it my guiding light, rather than remain in the darkness of confusion and illusory “beliefs”.