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 son said he was “born gay”....daddy is dumb.
We’re not allowed to drop our standards simply because they inconvenience some individuals or appear to be too harsh. Either we have marriage as an institution or we don’t. Conservatives who don’t understand this fundamental fact of life understand nothing.
If we dismantle the basic building block of our society, its hard to see how it will benefit men and women and children. If compassion is the rule that trumps everything else in social policy both morality and the social order will dissolve. The stakes for the future of this country in the end is about what kind of country we will be.
I guess if my child became a thief, I would embrace thievery as wholesome. Murder, sure. Adultery, good for you. The wages of sin is death and Mr. Portman ain’t the judge.
Prager writes “Periodically, we hear about Republican politicians whose child announces that he or she is gay.”
Yeah, statistically I’d say about one percent of Republican children are born with homosexual wiring. Same as the general population.
was he “born thief”?
heh
We can love the sinner and hate the sin at the same time. It might be one thing if there were genetic markers in DNA that caused homosexuality but everything I’ve seen seems to point to outside environmental influences but then again I’m not gay so what do I know?
I don’t see the relevance of his son’s sexual desires to the definition of the word “marriage”.
“Parents and children owe each other love and respect, not abandonment of convictions.” Very, very well put.
The son said he was “born gay”....daddy is dumb.
The alternative would be that his environment caused him to be gay, including the role of his father. It’s best that the father play the innocent victim of fate.
Portman forgot that sins don’t change simply because the times do.
If your child is gay, yes you should love your child but that doesn’t mean giving up deeply held moral beliefs to spare your child pain. Portman forgets the fundamental duty of a parent is to make sure their child makes the right choices in life, not to shield their child from those choices.
We live in a culture that prioritizes compassion. But its not always for the good of society - the good Portman overlooked in a bid to spare his son’s feelings.
Whenever this comes up in conversations with friends, I try to point out nicely that I have never heard a soon-to-be parent say “I hope he/she will be gay...”.
Can it be cured? my guess is that is some it can be, but in others it must simply be repressed much like the urge most men feel to cheat on their wives with young attractive women.
We are not animals, we are men. We have a CHOICE to act on our impulses or not, we are not slaves to every urge we have.
There is a reason the Greek root for the latter is "pathos," a sickness, a disease.
So now Mr. Portman has the undying respect and admiration of the Godless Left.
I suppose now they will embrace his stance on taxes, the size and scope of government, the second amendment, illegal immigration, etc.
I don't even know where Mr. Portman stands on these issues, but that's beside the point. How come he hasn't become the go-to guy on them?
Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do.
This is a rather common event with families that have homosexual kids. It’s the easy way. Are there really parents out there who desire that their child miss out on the joy and fullness of a true marriage with the opposite sex and the blessing of children? Or are they just accommodating their child’s behavior? Every parent wants their child to love and be loved, but what if little Jimmy or Suzie brought home a sheep? It’s not the same. The parents are settling for less with their child.
Bingo!
And the world is filled with faithful men who manage to maintain their fidelity, despite sexual desires pointing them in the direction of sin.
Compassion is not affirming someone in sinful, destructive behavior. If Portman truly loves his son, he will work for the salvation of his soul and seek counseling and help for him.
IMHO, Portman is feeling guilty for not being there for his son and is partly to blame for his son’s same sex attraction. Now he’s trying to make good.
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.