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.
"..As Upton explains, "the Sodomite is violent against nature because he denies relatedness to the Other; his erotic energy is turned inward." This is indeed the key point. Man cannot engage in mere animal sexuality without sinking beneath even the animals, who are innocent in their animality. ..."
IF you accept that God made us, then you also are obliged to heed His word.
Everyone does have things they think are right or wrong, THIS INCLUDES GOD, our Creator. He has been very forthcoming with what HE says is RIGHT and what HE says is wrong. Believing His word, makes it all very simple.
While you may not DO either of those things, accepting them as potentially ‘valid’ behaviors puts you in the group of enablers.
Loving a homosexual son or daughter as one should, while simultaneously opposing homosexual “marriage” are not mutually exclusive, despite what the advocates claim. A lot of folks forget to add love to standing for what’s right, but the Christian walk is not easy. The far-reaching consequences of legally re-defining marriage in this sense will have profoundly negative consequences on our society. When Christians stand for truth but lack charity, or sacrifice the truth in the name of “love”, then we lose our position as a legitimate guiding force in society, as we’re seeing today. St. Paul in 1 Corinthians issues a stern warning that without love, the Christian has absolutely nothing. Part of love is standing firmly for the truth, but we can’t stand for the truth without love of God and love of our fellow man as image-bearers of God.
I believe His word differs with each of us.
I think Portman is a WUSSY father.
His word is absolute. God says some things are wrong and bad. He says others things are good and right. These do not change. They are not good for some and bad for others. They are immutable.
It is wrong for me to kill (murder). In fact, Jesus says even anger, that is not righteous, is a sin.
It is wrong for me to steal, even if I take those ‘gains’ and give them to the poor or to the church.
His word is absolute. He speaks plainly through it and it is easily understandable.
We are all born "trailing clouds of glory."
Thank you God, and please, somehow, forgive all bigots.
What do you use to determine the righteousness of anger?
Bigotry against sin is a virtue.
Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
and clever in their own sight.
Isaiah 20-21
Homosexuality serves no useful function in life,it’s a self interest idea.
Jesus showed that. It is anger against ‘wrong’, not persons. He showed that flipping tables and even using a batch of cords to drive ‘thieves’ from the Temple was acceptable.
But were I to become angry at you for your views, well, I’d have to probably engage in a little prayerful repentance.
So, when do you view homosexuality to be Ok or acceptable practice for a society, given that God calls it abomination?
It scares me, too. During puberty I was confused, ostracized and lonely (and, of course, randy as h*ll). Had I been encouraged by authority figures to identify as homosexual, knowing that doing so would bring me affirmation, protection and sexual contact, well, I can’t say with certainty what I might have done. Thank God in those days no such “choice” existed.
I would agree with you -their perception is screwed up. In my opinion -the disorder is like a bad habit -the more one engages in it the more entrenched they become.
One can be attracted to another, enjoy spending time with another, and love another without having sex with them -it happens all the time...
My moral compass is the one God gave to me when He created me.
Life is absolutely amazing in what it does to propagate itself, the mechanisms involved, the intricacies. How anything that blocks that overwhelming drive can be considered natural, or normal, is beyond reason.
But then, reason has nothing to do with it. It’s all about justification.
I let society determine that. I don’t view it as acceptable or unacceptable. I really don’t pay much attention to it except here on FR.
I agree
How can any parent 'know' let alone accept and resign themselves to the 'fact' that their child is a homosexual UNLESS the child has engaged in homosexual sex?
Based upon all the 'news', all the homosexual school clubs, and the popular anti bullying of homosexuals campaigns it seems there are quite a few underage homosexual sex practitioners out there having sex... Either that or there are some confused kids being led astray into believing they are destined to be a homosexual even before they have actually been one by having disordered sex...
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.