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
This is a great post. But I have a question: “BLM delenda est”?
“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“.
Aww, come on, Jerry, enough with the compliments already! You’re making me blush.
BTW: Here’s where Gary Robbins and I split up Ricochet Pariah duties: He’s the anti-Trump guy. I’m the who-gives-a-damn-about-same-sex-marriage guy.
I started using ChiCom delenda est a few months back, then transitioned to this one.
It’s from a saying attributable to Cato the Elder, a Roman statesman during the Republican period, during one of the Punic Wars (the wars against Carthage, who were called the Punis by the Romans). There’s another Cato, the Younger, who was the great-grandson of the original, and was one of the leading Optimates in opposing Caesar.
Anyway, Cato the Elder reportedly said something like “Carthago delenda est” at the end of every speech, on any subject. It means “Carthage must be destroyed.” I don’t know Latin myself (beyond common phrases like this and legal terms), but I think that his full statement was a bit longer than this. “Carthago delenda est” is a kind of Roman meme for the need to utterly destroy an implacable enemy.
A few months back during the early parts of the coronapanic, Paddy did a post using “delenda est,” and Boss Mongo did a post referring to the Chinese government as the “ChiComs.” I liked these so much that I put them together.
I shifted to BLM recently, for obvious reasons. I still think that ChiCom delenda est, but I think that we need to deal with the domestic enemies first.
I share your views. Even if I wasn’t an orthodox Catholic, I would still regard homosexuality as a disorder. Natural, yes, but sometimes people are naturally born blind, and it doesn’t negate the fact that the purpose of the eye is to see. That doesn’t mean I have to dislike or mistreat anyone afflicted with same-sex attraction – being Catholic requires me to see Christ in them as much as in anyone else.
As for same-sex “marriage”, I see it as the redefinition of the institution of marriage by the culture. Just because the culture has redefined marriage doesn’t mean I have – it’s still one man, one woman for me. But I do think that the battle has been lost. Sorry. My guess is that other people on Ricochet, including podcast hosts, think likewise, which probably explains why it’s not discussed.
@arizonapatriot – I wish you had been on Ricochet for the SSM Wars, I think you would have enjoyed them.
I know, and you’re both wrong, but I’m also glad that you’re both here.
Maybe you’ll come around. Possible, but unlikely. Maybe you’ll convince me. Less likely, I think.
Your not alone Jerry. We are just in the minority. The country has become less Christian and more secular. As well as the republican party and many church’s . Revival is the only answer and that can’t be ginned up, the Holy Spirit has to be the author. Pray for Revival !
Jerry,
Heterosexual Monogamy is a pillar of Western Civilization. You know, when you pull a load-bearing pillar out the roof caves in. I have a great deal more to say on the subject but that will be all for now.
Regards,
Jim
Great topic, albeit a huge, complicated one full of layers and nuance.
I think it would probably be useful to separate various elements, because many of us will have different answers to the “do you object to…” and “then why don’t you say something about it” questions, depending on which item you choose. It’s really several discussions.
Distinct questions you’ve raised include (but are probably not limited to):
Is experiencing homosexual desire itself immoral?
Should acting on homosexual feelings be illegal?
Should a legal union be recognized for same-sex couples?
Should “marriage” be re-defined to include unions of same-sex couples?
Which, if any, of these are fruitful issues to address, given the practical limits of one’s time and energy?
My answers are “no,” “no,” “yes,” “no,” and, alas, “none of the above.”
Back before the Supreme Court lowered the boom and effectively ended a debate that, as is so often the case, had not even begun, I was opposed to the redefinition of marriage on what I thought were very sensible traditionalist grounds. I’m still opposed, but I also believe, and believe strongly, that the issue is settled and there is no profit in attempting to re-open it. By “no profit,” I mean that it is an effort destined to fail and likely to take down other, more winnable causes with it.
We have bigger fish to fry now. Yes, I believe that the family is the great institution and, yes, I believe that same-sex marriage undermines the family. But I don’t think it even approaches in destructive potential the greatest threat to the family, which is the systematic destruction of women by the feminist project. It has overshot the simple and plausibly beneficial goals of legal equality of the sexes by depriving women of the traditions and standards of chivalry and public conduct that protected them from the predation of men. Women are, mistakenly in my opinion, now exhorted to act like men — like weaker, more physically and emotionally vulnerable men — even though the wants and needs of men and women are profoundly and ineluctably different. Feminism destroyed femininity, and routinely denigrates the sine qua non of womanhood, the ability to give birth to a child.
So the practical fight today isn’t against homosexuality (if fighting that is your inclination), nor about same-sex marriage. In my opinion, the current front is the trans movement, a noxious authoritarian fiction that seeks to complete the destruction started by modern feminism. That fight hasn’t been lost, not yet. And it is more winnable, I think, than the others, because it leads to inevitable conflict between women and men-who-believe/pretend-they’re-women, and these conflicts draw attention to the ludicrousness of trans dogma.
I’d be happy to revisit the same-sex debate, if it ever becomes fruitful to do so. But I think there are other, more pressing battles to be fought, and trying to re-engage on that front will cost more than it gains.
But if you want to give it a shot, I’ll chime in. ;)
No, Jerry, you aren’t alone. This born again, evangelical (in the historical sense) disciple of Christ agrees with you. Why do you feel like a voice crying in the wilderness? I blame the churches.
Why isn’t there any push in regard to SSM? Because there’s hardly any active opposition in churches. We may have passed amendments to our church constitution so that we couldn’t be forced to host a SSM, but then we went passive. Who wants to follow John the Baptist’s example and tell Herod he ought not have his brother’s wife? Where are the churches that will speak the truth to power? How many are prepared to be mocked and laughed at? IIRC your church is part of a supposedly conservative denomination. Do they make a big deal out of it? Do they shout opposition from the rooftops? Well maybe in Arizona they do, but I know several bible belt states where they don’t.
And Jerry, if you are a twice-born blood-bought child of the King, then you should know why those that aren’t don’t really care a whole lot: In a nutshell, Rom. 8:7.
Most of us just don’t talk about our views in polite company.
Then you should certainly feel free to discuss your views here.
I’m not in polite company? Who’d thought?
Kay,
Actually, compared to the rest of the internet, Ricochet is a bastion of decorum.
Regards,
Jim
Are these the only two options?
Am I allowed not to care much about homosexuality one way or the other? I’d like to think that being a conservative American woman in 2020 would encompass rather more than gettin’ all het up about the gays.
That’s part of the problem, I think. We are the polite company. They are the radicals who are trying to destroy the foundation of civilization.
I can only speak for myself, but I try and be polite while I’m implementing The Gay Agenda.
You know Jerry, people are going to do what they think is best for their lives. It is not up to us to change their minds, they will have to change on their own. I’ve done everything I can think of to change minds about abortion. I think it is evil, but I haven’t even changed one mind to stop someone from aborting their child.
There isn’t just one of you who adhere to the biblical teaching that sodomy is an abomination to God, a sin as great or greater than murder.
There are at least two of us.
You’re not afraid to say that a sin is a sin, not a virtue, as almost all other Ricocheteers do with respect to sexual sin. I am also not afraid to say it. So never think that you are alone among Ricocheteers.
As a group, Ricocheteers pride themselves on being conservative, but on the issue of sodomy, most are perfect hypocrites, meekly seeking membership in the inner circle of progressives in violation of their own consciences. I would rather appear at judgement as a progressive, who truly believed in his false religion, than an appeaser, who knew the Law but sought to escape the consequences of resistance to the progressives by pretending to accept their lies.
Hank, I have to cut you cement for reasons of space, but will try to address your points. I’ll start with your specific questions.
Homosexual attraction is not immoral, though it is bad. It is temptation, not sin. Even Jesus was tempted.
I would prefer not to make homosexuality illegal. The slope between legalization and the present turned out to be more slippery than a pig dunked in crisco, though.
No legal union should be recognized for homosexuals. This approach was a major mistake, which validated immorality in the vain hope of a compromise that would preserve traditional marriage in name, after surrendering on substance. I never understood this position. If homosexuality is wrong, then give it no legal benefits. If not, why would you not also concede the word “marriage.”
Obviously, I consider same sex “marriage” to be a mistake and an abomination. It elevates perversion to sacrament.
I agree that feminism is the root problem. It is a rejection of marriage and family, and a confusion of male and female roles. The ideological path from feminism, to the radical homosexual agenda, to the trans insanity, is obvious.
I think that the battleground remains homosexuality at present. Why you would yield to an obscene act of judicial tyranny is beyond me.
Trans is a lunatic overreach. Even the radical feminists and homosexuals are seeing that. We should keep pointing out that it is insane – literally, it is a psychological disorder – and I think that it will soon pass.
So come on, my friend, let’s be Jude Law and Joseph Fiennes in Enemy at the Gates. I call Law’s role as Zaytsev. It’s a remake, so you don’t have to die. :)
You’re allowed to do whatever you like.
But it’s not “about the gays.” It’s about preserving the family, and thereby civilization. I think that if you don’t see the connection between the radical homosexual agenda and the rest of the anti-American assault on all that we hold dear, you’re not paying attention.
After 10 years on Ricochet, I often forget who was around for which conversations. But rest assured that the nature and implications of homosexuality were debated again and again — to the point of 100+ comment conversations — during the “SSM wars” preceding the Obergefell decision by SCOTUS. There have been debates since, but the focus has shifted from tolerance of gay coupling to tolerance of traditional mores. As you say, the culture has seen a tectonic shift in a very short time.
You overstate the case concerning Ricochet podcasters.
Peter Robinson is a conservative Catholic, I’m fairly sure. James Lileks is pretty traditional as well, being from the Midwest. If he has spoken in favor of gay unions, I don’t remember it (which can’t be said for another favorite pundit and early Ricochet podcaster, Mark Steyn). There are some other Midwesterners, like John Hinderaker, I think. Dave Carter is a Gulf Coast Southerner and Catholic, like me, and is a tradiionalist on the matter. Mollie Hemingway, who was Ricochet’s first editor before running The Federalist and becoming a superstar on FOX News, is a conservative Lutheran who once wrote apologetics.
There is indeed a general leaning among the podcasters that reflects the state of punditry at the national level more than anything else. Most pundits and political journalists live on the East or West Coast, where big city Republicans tend to be “socially liberal” and so self-defeating. Among traditional conservatives, most are intimidated or neglect hard objections in eagerness to get along.
Ideally, religious statistics would be very informative. They are not. Most people who claim any faith take the easier route of adapting their beliefs to their lifestyle, rather than lifestyle to beliefs. I don’t think this is particular to Christians or even to our time. It’s typical human nature (fallen) to succumb to worldly living, as the Bible makes clear.
Since SCOTUS has ruled that national law against sexual discrimination now includes gender ideology (as Ted Cruz thinks Congress might have established anyway), we traditionalists are in for a world of hurt. Censorship of traditional views — though still shared by half the nation and most of the world — is just getting started. It’s remarkable how uniform corporations already were and how little they feared upsetting most of their customers before law demanded such capitulation.
Praise of homosexual coupling, and now crossdressing, and tomorrow something grosser, is a part of a very long and very complex corruption of Western civilization. Never be intimidated into lying or remaining silent. Pray to almighty God first, last, and always. This is the final stage of great civilizations throughout history. Pray for courage, for mercy, and for a revival.
You are polite, Zafar, and I appreciate it. The activists are not, and those in authority are not. They are vicious.
I suspect that most believers on Ricochet–Jews, Christians, and Muslims–who by their words blaspheme by elevating the abomination of sodomy to the status of a Holy Sacrament know in their hearts that they are lying. They are afraid to be cast out of the inner circle by the bullies.
In the old days, pre-Trump, pre-impeachment, pre-Covid, pre-recession, homosexuality and gay rights were big subjects of argument on Ricochet, before the headlines took over. Of those many, many posts on SSM and related debates, roughly 99.98 percent were started on the SoCon side. Out of several thousand active Ricochet members, at any one time there are several hundred really active ones. From that number, there were exactly two gays–Zafar and Cato Rand. Yep, two, This is the overwhelming cudgel that Ricochet brought to bear. Plus, Z and CR did have friends and allies. Jamie Lockett, me, Larry2425 on some issues. Some “war”.
Civil marriage is not equivalent to the holy sacrament of marriage. For much of history they happened to coincide, but they are distinct. I still think it was a mistake to change civil marriage so drastically (and yes that includes no fault divorce), but the holy sacrament remains, for now, intact.
Jerry and I had these bouts on this subject before 2020, when he’s had an admirable series of against-the-grain posts about the coronavirus epidemic. He’s a skilled data analyst and an advocate who knows how to craft a winning argument. That’s what he does for a living.
So I beseech and implore you to at least consider a comparison with what you’ve taught us with hard numbers this spring. I don’t concede that there’s anything wrong with homosexuality, so comparing it with a virus even for the sake of argument is spotting one to my opponent. Despite all the frenzy and panic, homosexuality is greatly overrated as a social issue. Only 3% of men and about 1.5% of women are susceptible at all; it doesn’t affect anyone else very much. That curve, by the way, is flat; so far as we know it was the same in Caesar’s army. If you don’t have it, you can’t catch it. How does it affect the affected? The vast majority report few side effects and otherwise normal lives. So why the hysteria?
Jerry, that’s a good question so I’ll focus on just that one.
I don’t think homosexuality is wrong in any moral sense. I don’t think desires, per se, are right or wrong. (I’ve written about this here before, I’m sure.) While I think homosexuality is abnormal — in the same sense as, for example, color blindness is abnormal — I can’t find a moral justification for denying homosexuals the freedom other consenting adults have to conduct themselves as they wish in the privacy of their own homes. I understand why some feel differently about that, and I’m not offended by people who think homosexual conduct should be illegal. I just think it’s a moot point, given where we are as a culture.
It’s your second question that interests me. If I don’t think homosexuality is wrong in any significant sense, then why not call a same-sex union “marriage?”
Because, while homosexual behavior has likely been around as long as humans have been around, the civil institution of marriage has never been defined (with, possibly, one or two trivially minor and highly qualified exceptions) to include same-sex couples. The language we use to refer to the members of a marriage, to refer to a “husband” and a “wife,” mean more than simply “partner A” and “partner B.” The word “husband” implies, even today, a leadership and stewardship role. The word “wife” implies a supporting role, one secondary in authority. Our literature, our history, our culture, our iconography and our stories freight “husband” and “wife” and “marriage” with specific, well understood meanings.
Same-sex “marriage” undermines that tradition. What do you call the partners? I refuse (and the Supreme Court can be damned) to call two men in a same-sex union “husbands.” I refuse to call two women in such an arrangement “wives.” Doing so, I feel, erodes the meaning of these terms that have been a part of our culture for thousands of years, along with all of the understandings and implications that come from them.
Imagine Shakespeare rewritten for same-sex couples. So many of the plots revolve around the differences between men and women, and the characteristic strengths and weaknesses of each. Despite the Supreme Court’s creative Constitutional lawmaking, “husband” and “wife” still carry meanings that resonate with all of us; so too does “marriage,” in that it contains within it the historical reality of a husband and a wife.
Polygamy and polyandry are also forms of marriage. While I object to either being legal, at least they don’t torture the language and destroy our traditional understandings of roles and all the value that comes from that understanding. Mixed-race marriages have not always been legal, but they have always been recognized as marriage — simply as illegal forms of marriage. The same is true of incestuous marriage: it was recognized as marriage, but generally prohibited.
So there are other forms of marriage, most of which (except for mixed-race marriages) I would oppose, that don’t by their nature destroy our historical understanding of marriage, husband, and wife. But same-sex marriage does do that. As it is popularized (more in popular entertainment culture than in reality), and as social activists work to spread the mistaken idea that same-sex marriage is “normal,” is “just like other marriages,” we will gradually lose our rich understanding of the roles of men and women in a family relationship. And that’s too bad, because I think normal marriage is the best structure in which to raise healthy children — a job hard enough to do in any case, and only compounded by social radicalism.
Those were interesting days. My mission statement when joining Ricochet was to try and understand the Right, and I read a lot of stuff then that left me pretty wide eyed. I have never had so many conversation where the other person or persons brought up anal sex, and I’m including time spent in gay bars.
It got heated, but my impression was that a lot of people weren’t really used to being challenged on their assumptions about this subject.
Which I couldn’t resist, having some personal investment, but which didn’t always help me with my mission.
I appreciate your posts, Jerry. I think the issues of homosexuality, gay marriage, the rise of militant feminism, and the abandonment of organized, traditional religion is inextricable. I really don’t think you’re the lone man here. Gay marriage, especially, was a tipping point for progressives to harness the ‘bigot’ label to get what they want. No one likes the label, so when conservatives shrink from the fight out of some desire to avoid being (falsely) vilified, it encourages more of the same until we get “if you’re not anti-homophobic, you’re homophobic”, fall further down the cultural dump-heap to polygamy, and a deafening silence from people who know better. I think most who don’t actively or publicly oppose homosexuality, take the stance of ‘what someone does in the privacy of their own homes isn’t my business.’ The trouble here is it only works one way: conservatives who aren’t ‘inclusive’ enough are always bigots anyway, but liberals can shut down conservative views/beliefs with impunity. Now I’m rambling and I’ve lost my point, if I had one, in the murky water of this topic. So I’ll just leave it at: it’s telling when Catholic adoption orgs are shut down because of their traditional views, but the left can exploit kids to advance their trans/homosexual narrative without question. See here: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xe5kb/drag-kids-kinderdrag