Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
One Man, One Woman
I am a traditionalist and I seem to find myself in a tiny minority. Sometimes it feels like a minority of one, though I know that there must be a few others who share my views.
There has been a tremendous Leftward shift in many public attitudes over the past 20 years or so, with homosexuality being one of the most notable changes. I have been shocked and mystified by this shift. Within my adult lifetime, we’ve gone from widespread condemnation of homosexuality itself to widespread condemnation of opposition to homosexuality. This seems to have happened even on the political Right, among people who consider themselves conservatives, including many of you, dear readers.
This shift in attitude has coincided with a widespread campaign of propaganda, misrepresentations, vilification, and slander. The campaign has been carried out by the Wokeist methods of “cancel” culture, which so many of you appear to condemn. Yet many of you seem to have accepted the radical Leftist conclusion on this issue. And, strangely, you still seem to consider yourselves conservatives. What, precisely, do you think that you are conserving? Low capital gains tax rates?
My first complaint, frankly, is about the public discussion on this issue. This is supposed to be a “center-right” website. I listen to a great many of the podcasts. Perhaps I am forgetting someone, but I cannot think of one single podcast at this website that advocates the traditional moral view of homosexuality. You know, that it’s a bad thing, and should not be supported in the law in any way, and certainly not elevated to a status equal with the traditional family: one man, one woman. Can you name any single Ricochet podcast host who takes this position?
Even if you can think of one, or a handful, isn’t it strange that the consensus position on this issue is so entirely one-sided?
In my case, I thought homosexuality was a bad thing even back when I was an atheist. Now, as a follower of Jesus, I have His clear teaching on this point, particularly as applied to marriage:
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” [Matthew 19:3-6.]
In this statement, by the way, Jesus was quoting Genesis, so this is the Jewish teaching as well. Recognition of homosexuality as a bad thing has been the near-universal teaching of Christianity for 2,000 years, and of Judaism for around 3,500 years and I understand that Muslims agree about this point, as well.
I realize that not everyone shares my Christian faith, but doesn’t it strike you as strange that, at a supposedly conservative website, I can’t think of one single podcaster or one single contributor who holds to this traditional view?
Eric Weinstein has two interesting ideas applicable here. He posits the existence of the DISC (Distributed Information Suppression Complex) and the GIN (Gated Institutional Narrative). He describes the DISC as a loosely coupled emergent structure, not under central control, that suppresses ideas and protects institutions from individuals who have valid and reasonable points. (Further explanation here.) The GIN is a sociological method whereby the media and political classes misrepresents or, perhaps more often, omits stories and viewpoints that do not fit the preferred narrative. (Further explanation here.)
Many of you may not know Eric Weinstein or his brother, Bret Weinstein, they’re certainly no conservatives. If you think that I am some closed-minded troglodyte, you should realize that I listen to them quite regularly, along with other non-traditional and even Left-leaning thinkers (among them Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson, and Jonathan Haidt; and if you think that any of them are conservatives, then maybe you’re not actually very conservative).
Back to my main point: I get the impression that traditional Protestant conservatives are almost nowhere to be found, here at a supposedly conservative website. According to the 2016 exit polls (here), Protestants were the largest single religious group — 52% of the electorate — and they voted for Trump over Clinton 56% to 39%. Breaking it down further, the biggest religious sub-group was “white born-again or evangelical Christians,” 26% of the electorate, supporting Trump 80%-16%. Catholics were the next largest group, 23% of the electorate, narrowly supporting Trump (50%-46%).
If you do the math, votes for Trump from white evangelicals, people like me, were 21% of all votes cast. Protestant votes for Trump were about 30% of all votes cast. The President carried about 46% of the popular vote; so about 2/3 of his support was from Protestants, and almost half of his support was from white evangelicals.
This wasn’t a Trump thing, by the way. According to the 2012 exit polls (here), white evangelicals were 26% of the electorate in 2012 as well, and supported Romney 78%-21%.
So why can I not think of one single podcaster or contributor at Ricochet in this demographic? I mean, how can folks like me simultaneously be the largest group in the Republican electorate and an apparently endangered species?
OK, I know, David French…. but give me a break. He was on the pro-SSM side, for crying out loud.
Back to homosexuality. I reject the idea that the debate is over. Peter Hitchens, the public intellectual who is probably most closely aligned with my own views, called the SSM debate a “pointless Stalingrad.” His attitude is that the battle for Christian civilization was lost with no-fault divorce. But he’s a Brit, and I’m an American. I have not yet begun to fight.
While I’m not terribly fond of an analogy that places me in the position of the Red Army, I note that Stalingrad was not pointless. Stalingrad was the turning point. There could be no Kursk, no driving the Nazis out of the Motherland, no fall of Berlin unless the enemy was stopped at Stalingrad. You have to fight on the ground on which you find your enemy.
It is utterly bizarre to me that I seem to be almost alone in this position. This has been the official Republican Party platform since at least 1992. A review is in order.
1992 Republican Party Platform (here):
The culture of our Nation has traditionally supported those pillars on which civilized society is built: personal responsibility, morality, and the family. Today, however, these pillars are under assault. Elements within the media, the entertainment industry, academia, and the Democrat Party are waging a guerrilla war against American values. They deny personal responsibility, disparage traditional morality, denigrate religion, and promote hostility toward the family’s way of life. Children, the members of our society most vulnerable to cultural influences, are barraged with violence and promiscuity, encouraging reckless and irresponsible behavior.
. . .
We also stand united with those private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts of America, who are defending decency in fulfillment of their own moral responsibilities. We reject the irresponsible position of those corporations that have cut off contributions to such organizations because of their courageous stand for family values. Moreover, we oppose efforts by the Democrat Party to include sexual preference as a protected minority receiving preferential status under civil rights statutes at the federal, State, and local level.
1996 Republican Party Platform (here):
We are the party of the American family, educating children, caring for the sick, learning from the elderly, and helping the less fortunate. We believe that strengthening family life is the best way to improve the quality of life for everyone.
Families foster the virtues that make a free society strong. We rely on the home and its supportive institutions to instill honesty, self-discipline, mutual respect and the other virtues that sustain democracy. . . .
This is the clearest distinction between Republicans and Clinton Democrats: We believe the family is the core institution of our society. Bill Clinton thinks government should hold that place.
. . .
Our agenda for more secure families runs throughout this platform. Here we take special notice of the way congressional Republicans have advanced adoption assistance, promoted foster care reform, and fought the marriage penalty in the tax code. . . . They passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines “marriage” for purposes of federal law as the legal union of one man and one woman and prevents federal judges and bureaucrats from forcing states to recognize other living arrangements as “marriages.”
2000 Republican Party Platform (here):
We support the traditional definition of “marriage” as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages. We rely on the home, as did the founders of the American Republic, to instill the virtues that sustain democracy itself. That belief led Congress to enact the Defense of Marriage Act, which a Republican Department of Justice will energetically defend in the courts. For the same reason, we do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law.
2004 Republican Party Platform (here):
We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.
After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage. Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country, and anything less than a Constitutional amendment, passed by the Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. The Constitutional amendment process guarantees that the final decision will rest with the American people and their elected representatives. President Bush will also vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by both parties and passed by 85 votes in the Senate. This common sense law reaffirms the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.
2008 Republican Party Platform (here):
Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character. Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems. We support the courageous efforts of single-parent families to provide a stable home for their children. Children are our nation’s most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster and adoptive families.
Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex “marriages” licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage.
2012 Republican Party Platform (here):
The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage.
2016 Republican Party Platform (here):
Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court’s lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a “judicial Putsch” — full of “silly extravagances” — that reduced “the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Storey to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie.” In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition. To echo Scalia, we dissent.
I understand that the conservative movement and the Republican Party need to be a big tent, but for crying out loud, I’m the guy whose right foot is pinned under that big pole at the center of the tent. How can it be that I am pretty much alone, in the very middle of the crowd?
I’ll tell you why I think this is: I think that our side has been cowed by the slanderous vilification peddled by the radical Left. I think that it has been internalized by a great many people who think that they are conservatives. Some of them may actually believe it and many more may feel afraid to speak.
I don’t think that Ricochet actively tries to silence traditional conservative voices. It may be as simple as the fear of losing advertising revenue, and the advertisers may themselves react with fear to the Wokeist mob. It may be that the podcast lineup is drawn from people who have already gained prominence in the institutional media, and who have therefore already been filtered by the DISC (distributed information suppression complex) to ensure some degree of compliance with the GIN (gated institutional narrative).
So what to do about the mess that we are in?
I go back to the beginning. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. That’s Genesis 1.
Next, He created man, in His own image. It was not good for the man to be alone, so God created woman. That’s Genesis 2, affirmed by Jesus as quoted earlier, and affirmed again in our own Declaration of Independence.
“That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24. That’s marriage. One man, one woman.
So it seems to me that these are the foundations. Faith in God. Marriage and family.
This is where I am going to take my stand. Alone if necessary. Let me know whether or not I am alone in this.
BLM delenda est.
Published in Marriage
I think the transcription by the Jews was scrupulous.
The original transcription may have been, but there have been questions about subsequent translations, and translations of translations, and….
Nearly every radical movement has legitimate points. I find myself quite sympathetic to the early French revolution which wanted to lower taxes on working folks and increase the franchise for different people. Ending slavery was also pretty sweet.
Like BLM, I too am upset about the death of George Floyd.
But BLM, not unlike the French Revolution, ended up causing the death of more people than they saved. (Check out Heather MacDonald’s Minneapolis effect.)
This is why moderate (classically) liberal movements work so much better than radicalism. You can lower taxes in France and improve police training throughout the present U.S. without burning down Churches or minority owned businesses for example.
Why should it mean that, smarty pants?
Ha! You haven’t spent much time debating theology, have you?
I guess that if God exists and speaks directly to people, he must mumble a lot because he is constantly misunderstood. They can’t all have heard correctly.
There was actually more to the French Revolution than lowering taxes on the poor, and I have a feeling there’s more BLM than improved police training.
If it was limited to lower taxes/better training then yes, a classical liberal movement might do it a lot more efficiently and with less destruction. But historical forces didn’t create such a movement then, and I don’t think they’ve created one now either. Seems relevant.
(Btw, when have moderate liberal movements arisen to create reform, and when were they successful?)
Edited to add: how about the movement to legalise SSM? Classical liberal movement? Perhaps.
I think perhaps you are misunderstanding how we use the term “acts.” You seem to think we’re out to write a list of specific sex acts, then decide which are forbidden and which are hunky-dory, but that’s really beside the point.
We stress “acts” to distinguish between desires vs. acting on those desires. In the Christian worldview, our appetites and desires were corrupted by original sin, and are not trustworthy. Some come from God, but others are temptations from the devil to lead us astray. We must discern which is which. Experiencing desires (or temptations) is not itself immortal or blameworthy, but how we choose to exercise our free will and act is crucial.
Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King by a country mile and the whole civil rights movements based on polite christian decency.
I think that most Ricochet are very big into MLK even if they disagree with his stance towards the Vietnam War and homosexuality. I think that after the Tet offensive America should have secured Southern Vietnam as a democratic capitalist country that would have developed awesome gay bars and churches because of their freedom. I notice that when peoples become free they tend to have great gay bars and great churches.
MLK wanted reforms based on Christian/American principles. His demands for Civil Rights were not at all new, different black-Americans had been arguing about them for decades.
I like that whole non-violence thing too, but it’s hard to say how much civil rights legislation was passed in response to a moral movement and how much was passed in response to the riots that continued to erupt during that period. (This was also true of Britain granting India independence – how much due to Gandhi, how much due to the fact that India was becoming increasingly hard to control?)
I don’t know this guy, but he puts it well:
Your comment about gay bars and churches:
Is delightful. I have my doubts about the direct line from churches to gay bars (unless you’re a priest, of course), but I like the concept.
Because we don’t get to demand that other people change just because we don’t like that they’re different?
But both groups are demanding something from the other.
The civil rights movement demanded things from broader society.
It’s not necessarily a bad thing to ask for (or even demand) something.
Ah, the old equating-racism-with-homophobia deal. Sorry, doesn’t fly. (P.S. Black people don’t like that one either.)
But anyway it’s also an issue of negative versus affirmative rights. Or whatever other terms you prefer.
All bigotry is in some ways similar.
The right to vote, the right to marry your partner.
Can you explain how one is a negative right and the other an affirmative right?
Man speaking to God is called prayer.
God speaking to man is called schizophrenia (unless you’re a prophet).
It’s very likely that the prophets were either [a] lying or [b] delusional.
A negative right, at least as I usually figure it, is basically a right not to be stopped from something. A positive right to do something. Which some people extend to be that someone else has to pay for it, if you can’t/won’t.
But the thing is, a homosexual male has the same right to marry – a WOMAN – that a heterosexual male has. Marry “whoever I choose” is a different story.
Or we could enact legislation that provides an adult the right to marry another adult. This would allow for either heterosexual or homosexual marriage. This is what I support.
What would you call the right to marry your partner (if they agree)?
Negative or positive?
We did that here in Australia a couple of years ago – it hasn’t turned out to be so disruptive. (So far.)
fwiw there was a majority (of varying strength) in each state/territory that voted yes in the (slightly odd) postal survey.
Most of us sinners have no problem with homosexuality because it’s none of our business.
For those of you who consider homosexuality immoral, should it be illegal?
And if it should be illegal, what should the punishment be?
That depends. What do you think it means to marry? Is it an action? If so, what action?
Rum, sodomy and the lash.
I’m just speaking of civil marriage.
That’s true, but it’s never been accepted. Why? I think it’s because there are varying notions about what marriage actually is. Without nailing that down first with whoever you’re talking to then there is no hope of sorting it all out or understanding each other.
In one notion, marrying is something that individuals do. If it’s something an individual does then a conservative operating with liberty in mind might want prohibition to have a strong justification before going along. Eww or tut tut are not exactly strong justifications.
I disagree strongly with the notion that it’s an action taken by an individual. I think it’s something that an authority does to you. Confers (or in some cases imposes) a status upon you. A couple doesn’t actually marry, they are married by a priest (sacramental authority) or clerk/judge (civil authority). There is nothing an individual or couple can actually do to make themselves be married. It is wholly dependent on the relevant authority conferring the status or not.
Why is there a status at all then? Under the first notion I think the idea is generally that most reasons for regulation are probably incompatible with modern ideas of liberty. They’re arbitrary or worse.
Under the second notion, I think it used to be understood that the authority bothered to create a status because of the very real, ubiquitous, and unavoidable overall consequences of penuis in vagina sex. A very specific act that people are biologically driven to so which Carrie’s with it serious results. These results are fundamental to our civilization, but can just as easily (if not more easily) be a harm to our civilization. Marriage in this notion obligates participants to duties tobeaxh other and to society, it also protects individuals who are participating in thus lifelong project which can leave one or both vulnerable if something goes wrong or if the project is broken.
So am I. Is it an action? If so, what action?
You just described it well. It is an agreement which gains meaning from social and legal recognition.
Edited to add:
Entering into the agreement, which as you point out, has a third party involved as the confirming agent then influences on how you and your (now married) partner interact with the institutions of the state. (Taxes, wills, legal rights and responsibilities.)
The companionship, support and shared life are not what make a partnership a marriage – it’s the recognition of your partnership by society and the law that do that.
Is that what you were asking?
Here is a Pew survey on views of homosexuality not only in the United States but around the world.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/06/25/global-divide-on-homosexuality-persists/
Pew Research – Global Divide on Homosexuality
It seems that the wealthier the country, the more homosexuality is accepted.