Posted on 03/19/2013 6:18:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
Last week, Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio announced that he had reversed his position on same-sex marriage. The reason was that his son had come out to him and his wife as gay.
This is not the first such instance. Periodically, we hear about Republican politicians whose child announces that he or she is gay, prompting the parent to change his mind about the man-woman definition of marriage.
As a parent, I understand these parents. We love our children, and we want them to love us.
Nevertheless I differ with their decisions to support the redefinition of marriage.
In order to explain why, let's analyze some of Senator Portman's words:
"I'm announcing today a change of heart ... "
These words are well chosen. Senator Portman's position is indeed "a change of heart." That's why he didn't say "change of mind." His change comes from his heart.
In this regard, Portman speaks for virtually every progressive/left/liberal position on virtually every subject. To understand leftism -- not that the senator has become a leftist, but he has taken the left-wing position on redefining marriage -- one must understand that above all else leftism is rooted in emotion, not reason. That is why left-wing social positions always refer to compassion and fairness -- for blacks, for illegal immigrants, for poorer people and, of course, for gays. Whether a progressive position will improve or harm society is not a progressive question. That is a conservative question. What matters to progressives is whether a position emanates from compassion.
Progressives do not seem to recognize that in life there is always tension between standards and compassion. Standards, by definition, cannot allow for compassion for every individual. If society were to show compassion to every individual, it would have no standards. Speeding laws are not waived for the unfortunate soul who has to catch an important flight. Orchestral standards are not waived for the musician who has devoted his or her life to studying an instrument, is a wonderful person and needs the job to support a family.
It is either right to maintain the man-woman definition of our most important social institution, or is it not. We cannot base our decision on compassion for gays, whether the gay is our child, our sibling, our friend or anyone else.
Yes, societies have changed qualifications for marriage regarding age and number, but no society before the 21st century ever considered redefining the fundamental nature of marriage by changing the sexes. That is why it is not honest to argue that same-sex marriage is just another redefinition. It is the most radical change to the definition of marriage in the history of civilization.
How then should people of compassion deal with this, or any other, issue? By asking whether we maintain standards or whether we change them because of compassion. Do we change universities' academic standards out of compassion for blacks and their history of persecution, or do we maintain college admission standards? Do we change military standards in order to enable women to enter fighting units or do we ask only what is the best policy to maintain military excellence?
The only answer that works -- and no answer is perfect in this imperfect world -- is to maintain standards in the macro and show compassion in the micro.
Every parent owes the same love and support to a gay child as to a straight child. In fact, all of us, parents or not, owe the same respect to gays as individuals as to heterosexual individuals. That does not mean, however, that marriage needs to be redefined. It does not mean that, all things being equal, it is not best for a child to have a male and female parent.
Compassion was the reason Senator Portman raised another issue: "My son," he said, "told us he was gay, and that it was not a choice."
This raises an obvious question. Prior to his son telling him that he did not choose to find men sexually attractive, did Senator Portman believe that gay men did choose to find men rather than women sexually attractive? Unlikely.
So why did he raise this? Because the "gays have no choice" issue tugs at people's hearts. Once again, compassion individual is supposed to trump all other considerations.
Finally, the senator also said:
"During my career in the House and the last couple of years in the Senate, I've taken a position against gay marriage rooted in part in my faith and my faith tradition." But he has been "rethinking my position, talking to my pastor and other religious leaders."
It would be interesting to find out what exactly his Christian pastor said to him. Did the pastor tell him that Christianity looks favorably on man-man marriage? Or that God made men and women essentially interchangeable? If so, why didn't this pastor tell this to the senator the whole time the senator opposed same-sex marriage?
A final note to parents of gays: Parents who believe in the man-woman definition of marriage do not owe it to their gay child to support the same-sex redefinition of marriage -- any more than gay children owe it to these parents to oppose same-sex marriage. Parents and children owe each other love and respect, not abandonment of convictions.
The odd thing is, that really is the relevant question, not because the answer is self-evidently "no", but because, in light of the Fall, the answer to both "was he born thief?" and "was he born gay?" might both be "yes".
None of us are born having committed any particular sins -- we have not stolen when we are born, nor committed buggery, nor fornication, nor murder, and the like nor even the more nuanced underlying sins of covetousness, lust, wrath, or the like, but we are all born into the consequences of Adam's transgression. In that behavioral sense, no, the thief who objects his thievery is inborn would be wrong. But, that we might be born with an inborn besetting temptation is quite likely -- I suspect my own bad temper is inborn, but I will not attempt to argue "God made me wrathful, therefore wrath isn't a sin because I was born that way." The "born thief" may well be right that he was born with a besetting temptation to covetousness, indeed one so strong that without grace from God, struggling with it on his own, he "can't help himself" from stealing.
That a besetting temptation is inborn does not make yielding to that temptation not sinful. The correct answer to "I was born gay" is not "No you weren't", but "I'm sorry you have to struggle with temptations to the sin of buggery."
So, what other part of Scripture do you believe is in error?
I have no idea. No one that I am related to or know is a homosexual to my knowledge.
More like it’s all about self satisfaction.
Letting society determine that. What a misguided way to live. Society WILL, in the absence of absolute morals, devolve and in the end self-destruct. It has been demonstrated over and over in history.
We, as a nation (and society), have turned away from God, turned away from what He has said is good and right. We are now busy embracing all that has been called wrong or bad by God. I hope you find comfort for yourself in this coming destruction, because you are party to it, enabling it.
Nature (and power) abhor a vacuum. In the absence of God (who we have pushed away and turned away from), the Devil, or Satan will come to fill that moral void. And while God will leave when told (He is a gentleman, after all) the Devil will not. The payday is coming for this, for society has chosen who to follow.
My position, my view, is that following God will bring blessings beyond reckoning. However, refusing God and following the Devil, well, it will bring calamity and destruction beyond the wildest nightmare.
I don’t know it well enough to really say, but I don’t believe in virgin birth, resurrection of the dead, a man spending time in a whale’s stomach, an ass talking or sin and it’s forgiveness. There’s probably more that I’m not familiar with.
Society does determine these things. That’s how I believe God designed us. I believe we all follow God, He just gives us different paths, some which people have a hard time understanding.
I’ll apologize now for the upcoming destruction in case I don’t get a chance to later...sorry
No way they’d support efforts to isolate a ‘gay gene’. It’s the last thing in the WORLD that movement wants.
From that point forward, gay would be a genetic DEFECT. A sickness, for which there could be a cure, indeed through ‘gene therapy’.
You wonder why the Gates Foundation, and other big money groups don’t spend DIME ONE trying to find out? The entire liberal establishment would descend upon them like locusts spitting fire.
It would be the ultimate, ‘Gee, I told you so’ moment. It would also completely delegitimize psychology too. The head shrinkers quietly voted on whether it was a disease or normative, and narrowly voted on normative. It was literally a ‘Coke or Pepsi’ sort of debate, precisely because there is a virtual moratorium on research on the subject.
The gay mafia would be relegated to the rest of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) lamers begging for money to accommodate their affliction. Problem with that is you don’t need a wheel chair ramp to keep it in your trou and get gene therapy.
The irony is that all of this hysteria went into making AIDS a livable disease, which is perfect for everyone involved - the pharmas get to coin on keeping the sick from getting sicker, but not exactly well; the gays get to keep their mafia; the left gets to keep their money.
Everybody wins.
Yes, society does determine what things will be allowed, even if these things to be allowed are wrong. In that case, society is wrong.
It is not possible to do or allow wrong and then claim to be right or just.
ok
So, you feel more inclined to believe the “wisdom” of man, the created, in lieu of the Creator? He who created the universe is unable to make a jackass talk? I hear them talking all around me throughout the day.
Homosexuality is a behavior, smoking is a behavior, Drinking is a behavior, stealing is a behavior, murdering is a behavior, lying is a behavior, working is a behavior, honesty is a behavior......................
Now lets discuss what behaviors are good which are not.
Then lets discuss the causes of behavior so we can change them or encourage them more ..................................
I didn’t say God can’t make that happen, I just don’t believe it did.
Do you believe God can create different truths for different individuals?
Although I am very skeptical about the existance of a “gay gene” if it did exist it would put the Left in a conundrum. In addition to the points you raise people will abort babies carrying the gene rather than carrying a gay child to term. The Left will want to call it genocide, but in doing so will be hoist on their own petard. On the whole the gay gene would be nothng but trouble for them.
No, but I believe people will conceive any sort of truth to cover their transgressions. Slavery would be an example.
Amen. As I've been saying repeatedly for quite a while: HOMOSEXUAL, because there's nothing GAY about it.
And I ain’t “straight.” I am normal.
Proclaiming yourself to be “normal” is now being treated as hate speech!
"malapropism" ... "ludicrous misuse of words"
...’He who created the universe is unable to make a jackass talk?’...
yet He cannot create different truths for different people!!??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.