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.
I’ve thought about this over the years. I don’t believe that homosexual attraction is something one is born with. I’ve known one person in my life whom I think was probably of that persuasion as a young child. My kids referred to him with female pronouns and that was when they were three and four years old. I’ve been involved through my husband and kids with a lot of the music and theater culture. So I’ve known a lot of people who have made that choice. So I think it’s a choice. But I also think that there are a lot of bad choices right now that the 20 and 30 somethings are making. So if one of my children came to me with this declaration I would tell him/her that in my opinion it was a poor choice and not a good way to find the way to salvation. I would then ask when he/she would be at the Easter brunch and that he/she could invite a friend. I can only remember one time when a guest engaged in inappropriate PDA in my home and that was my former business partner and his skanky girlfriend. Did I mention “former”?
So in other words, I’m pretty sure such a “coming out” would not change my mind or my heart but I haven’t banished any family members so far because of poor choices so I don’t think I would start. When I last saw a long time friend and his boyfriend, I told them “God bless you both and take care of each other.” Now in my opinion, a blessing from God will help each move away from this attraction but that’s up to Him.
Considering the national trajectory that we are on you soon will.
And so now, in addition to seeing the ‘good’ in abortion (after all, it reduces the ‘cost’ of caring for all those children), you even see the ‘necessity’ for perverse sexual behavior, just to ‘fulfill those needs’ of course.
Wrong is wrong, you can not change it. And this behavior is wrong, in fact it is called an abomination, right alongside bestiality.
That’s a good idea, but the reality is, ultimately government or everyday people don’t want their definitions or beliefs left alone. Polygamists could tell you full well that the government wants to leave them alone, when they avoid bothering with marriage licenses for their relationships, and so on.
Are you sure about that? I think they know precisely what they are doing, and Who it is done against. And He will not be silent forever.
I often ask the question that if there were genetic markers for homosexuality, would the left support the right of parents to decide to abort their unborn child? Afterall, at the rate homosexuality occurs in a population, it could be considered a genetic defect much like Down’s Syndrome. What a quandry for liberals and probably for some conservatives too. ;-)
There is a Biblical answer, though the follow thru is hard.
Because of Abraham’s faith in God, he was willing to put even his son Isaac to death for the sake of his faith in God! Christ said he came to bring not peace but a sword and that even families would be divided for his sake.
Even if some in one’s family should decide they will be immoral and not follow Christ despite one’s best efforts then in the end that parent must follow Christ above all else.
A son or daughter coming out as gay should not lead one to abandon God’s priciples not matter what sort of pressures, manipulations, blame being put one one over parental mistakes made in the past...ect. At some point each person becomes accountable for their own actions before God.
A father might at times may need to cut off an errant one from damaging the rest of his family. Some parents have even killed homicidal children who were an immediate threat to the rest of their own kin. Good parenting is no guarantee that each child will come out perfectly. Yet what ever happens, Christ must not be abandoned.
I passed off as “feminine” for a lot of my childhood, got derided, and so on. But I did turn out to be a very capable husband, after a while. I think part of it, was they mistook my social awkwardness from trying to deal with Asperger’s Syndrome as something that was homosexual attraction, anyways, I do feel that the causality for same-sex attraction is complicated and may actually vary from person to person.
I do feel that some people may have a stronger likelihood for developing attraction to the same gender based on early developmental factors, but that’s just my speculation.
That environmental influence could have something to do with going to Yale where everything this young man was taught got turned upside down.
So you really don’t think he went through a difficult phase of introspection? Is it because the conclusion he came to wasn’t the same as yours?
Perhaps you two are different?
The entire homosexual “debate” is lynchpinned on the born that way myth.
there is no gay gene.
there is no behavior gene.
behavior is a choice.
homosexuality is a fetish.
a fetish is a choice.
A fetish is not the same as skin color or physical dna gender.
Congrats, you’re on top of things today! Figuring out what people think is getting to be second nature to you, huh?
cutting off the adult offspring is the correct answer.
Mrs WBill has a number of gay friends, leftover from college. It's easy for me to sit back and watch all of their trials and tribulations from the bleachers.
A fair number of them are decent guys who just happen to be gay - it's like being right-handed, or red-haired. It's just one facet of their lifestyle. However, I *have* noticed that they're very infantilized - things that you and I wouldn't give a second thought to, like smushing spiders or climbing under the house to fix a water leak, elicit an immediate "BLEAH!!! I could NEVER EVER do something like that!" reaction from them.
Strange, sez me, and undoubtedly a learned behavior.
As to the rest of the group, I've no doubt that homosexuality is a conscious choice. For lack of a better term, they are "Flaming Drama Queens", who engage in all (all!!) of the traditional gay stereotypes. This behavior is just one more attention-getter that satisfies their need, while maintaining their standing, socially. I've no doubt that if they could find something that was MORE attention-getting, while not harming their social status, they'd drop the whole "Flaming Gay Drag Queen" lifestyle like a hot rock.
As an aside, it's also interesting for me to watch the interactions in the group. Mrs WBill has pulled slowly away from all of them as she has gotten more and more conservative with age - marriage, responsibility, family will do that, I suppose. But the rest of the people in the group have shunned responsibility. The (non-gay, I assume) females are all single and employed in non-responsible positions (largely interacting with kids, which is concerning). Ditto that for the gay men.
Like I said, it's interesting to sit and watch the dynamic from afar. Would be a good long-term project for some psyche major, I'd think.
Indeed, I hope we are different.
I understand hat you're getting at, Goldstate, but I wouldn't put it quie that way.
I think it's more "If sentimentality is the rule..."
Real compassion meansa really caring for the other person's greatest good, his or her ultimate well-being. It is compassionate to understand that a person is yearning for acceptance and respect; it is not compassionate in the least to support and enable their sexual disorder, as if that were their greatest good. It is not compassionate to deepen another person's disorder.
The same "false compassion" is found in a welfare system which reduces your brother or sister to lifelong degraded dependency.
And toleration for alcohol and drug addition which cripples the addict's life-opportunities.
And misguided compassion for pedophiles which shields them from detection and thus enables them to keep on seeking their prey.
The problem here is not compassion. It's lack of insight into the other person's greatest good.
I have only your words. Why do they seem to be so easily ‘misunderstood’ as you claim?
It does not matter how the homosexuals see it. The behavior is wrong. The activity is wrong. Homosexuality is not an identity, it is a behavior.
We are given these ‘needs’ you refer to. They are for procreation and couple-bonding, AND these needs are to be fulfilled within the bounds of marriage. And marriage is the institution God created that is the union of a (as in one or a single) man and a (Again, just one) woman.
Other desires, and their activities, are so far beyond wrong they were given a special word to describe them - abomination.
Seems simple and clear cut to me, regardless of how a homosexual or lesbian, or zoophile, or pedophile, or necrophile might perceive it.
The correct word is homosexual. Gay is happy, joyful. We need to take the language back, and call the behavior what it is.
Would be a good long-term project for some psyche major, I’d think.
I’m happy for you to have things appear so simple to you.
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.