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.
aphorism - a terse formulation of a truth or sentiment
You describe as if you have true knowledge of Him...then you say if there is a God, then everything I just described about Him is true.
That just sounds odd to me
“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.”
Outstanding point, which raises an observation:
The case for gay rights rests on such very thin fabric.
You either CHOOSE to be gay, or you are BORN that way.
If you choose, then it implies you can rescind it.
If you are born gay, then there has to be some biological, not environmental or experiencial, causation.
If you aren’t born gay, but become gay, then the DSM needs to reclassify homosexuality as a disorder.
A biological causation, a gene perhaps, implies that a cure is possible, if enough resources were allocated to the purpose. It further implies that those who are gay and seek a cure are as much entitled to that cure as they would be a cure for AIDS.
Without bringing theology in this at all, the best data available shows that being gay is incredibly unhealthful and very risky. Were this any other condition and we’d be intervening to stem the spread of the condition.
Bottom line, and this is the very bottom line, the only argument for ‘gay rights’ you can make is IDENTICAL to the argument you’d make for wheelchair ramps.
Gay is a reproductive disability, at best, and not a ‘new gender’. In the interim while we find a cure, you can apply for benefits under the ADA.
Changing the nature of marriage ISN’T one of those accommodations you could seek under the ADA.
The entire argument is emotional, and is devoid of factual or scientific foundation.
From Webster ...
"bigot" = "a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc."
Is a person who rejects homosexuality and those who practice it a bigot?
I don’t believe in sin.
Well the word "blindly" is completely subjective and totally meaningless in the context of this purported definition and the "etc" at the end covers a lot of ground and would certainly include behavior or teaching. So, is being intolerant of sin a virtue? Jesus said, "I have this against you, you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality..." Jesus apparently didn't tolerate sinful teaching or behavior either so the aphorism stands like concrete. If you want to condone perversion that's your right. Don't expect Christians to do so however.
It’s simply more evidence for the doctrine of original sin.
Might I suggest you look up John 15-12 at http://bible.cc/john/15-12.htm
How does condoning a behavior which will send someone to hell act as “loving them”? It is as far as one can get from love. I note Jesus (God) said “If you love me you will keep my commandments”. It is not love to encourage someone on a road to hell but the farthest thing from it.
Good luck with that. Or not.
Look up "love" in your dictionary. One meaning is "a feeling of brotherhood and good will toward other people."
In actuality, hate is as far as one can get from love.
You should look at your won definition. My (and the Bible's) criticism is directed at a behavior not any individual. (ie. "other people") You are just trying to rationalize sin by calling any criticism of it hate. A common leftist and reprobate tactic. One can hate the sin and love the sinner. Homosexual sex is a sin which will send one to hell if they don't repent of it; "No homosexual will enter the Kingdom of Heaven" 1Cor 6. Gay is a behavior not an identity. A behavior the bible refers to as an "abomination". Further, Christ stated that he "hated" sinful behavior.
Sorry but you are incorret
In what way?
In the way you assume my worldview.
So, how am I wrong?
In all ways, but I’m not going to list them just so you can pick them apart. Of course I’m judgemental, that’s one of the reasons we have anonymous web forums. We’re all judgemental. Suffice it to say, that I do not care what others believ or don’t believe. As I have been saying, I believe God makes us all individuals.
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.