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
That’s what I’m saying applies to you too Gary. It’s also subjective belief for you. Therefore that’s that, it’s decided for you, there’s no argument. For the rest of us it doesn’t mean a thing.
You use that argument as if it doesn’t apply to you too, but it does. Perhaps moreso. At least I’m claiming a transcendent core to reason from. Can a secular argument claim the same?
I’m also saying that even most religious arguments aren’t primarily based on revelation, but rather reasoning about natural law.
I think some restrictions are going to appear arbitrary to some. The restriction on marriage as between 2 consenting adults is likely to be one of them.
If we allow plural marriage, a marriage between A, B, C and D, one wonders if each of these people have to consent to each relationship or only to a bi-lateral relationship.
But no testing at all is required to know that all (screened) heterosexual couples are more normal than all (screened) homosexual couples.
But the relevant questions is which couples would do a superior job of raising adopted children, not which couple is part of a larger demographic.
A larger demographic? Is that all you think it is?
Wow.
By that “logic” (is this another example of “gay logic?” I’m not sure) since whites are the “demographic” majority, you would think I think all black children should be adopted by white couples.
Geeze.
I think you misunderstood my point, perhaps intentionally. It could be the case that most screened heterosexual couples would do a better job of raising children than most screened homosexual couples. Whether this is actually true would need to be decided by empirical data. Saying that homosexuality isn’t normal isn’t really relevant unless one could say that all screened heterosexual couples would do a superior job of raising children than all screened homosexual couples.
When the wife and I were married, to obtain the license we had to be tested for VD. And couldn’t get state approval without passing the tests so we had to wait – I think it was three days. That’s pretty intrusive.
Nope, not marriage. Nature ordained that men and women in sexual relationships marry and form families. Gays may have a cooperative partnership and even a license from the government, but it ain’t marriage.
Man, woman, permanent, monogamous. That’s the formula — or, better, the form. We’re actually extending special privileges to same-sex couples based on their particular sexual desires (any person has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex (assuming consent), including people with same-sex attraction). Once that’s the case, all other manner of sexual deviations from the norm may partake in special pleading.
maybe not to homosexuals.
That’s because of your definition of “superior” which I suppose includes things like “has higher post-graduate degrees,” etc. I put a normal family structure above that. And I think most people, if they’re not in front of a CNN camera, would do the same. I also don’t think children should be adopted by nuns, or catholic priests, or people seeking the simple life of purity in Tibet… the list is long.
Nicely done.
From a legal perspective, same sex couples can obtain civil marriage licenses. You can claim that this isn’t real marriage. I understand your point. But as long as we are talking about public policy and not theology, same sex couples can get married.
It’s also a matter of perspective. This change feels like it’s happened too fast for you? For me it feels like it’s taken to[o] long.
To quote @GrannyDude ‘s grandmother (or mother?): people don’t change until it hurts not to.
The people of the United States have changed their attitudes toward homosexuality.
These days we are less likely to be hoodwinked by some Baptist preacher who says that God opposes homosexuality and instead face the issue of homosexuality from a more practical perspective. Given that many people are attracted to people of the same sex, what is the best way to deal with this? Instead of shaming people, we are not telling people that it’s fine. That’s moral progress, in my opinion.
Evening Zafar,
I don’t think I was asking you to plumb your feelings. I was suggesting that we are rather ignorant about how culture works and what parts can be changed easily and what parts are best maintained. I would also suggest that we are rather ignorant about biology and the different sexual strategies that animate males and females, from robins to lions to us.
The priesthood was made celibate because priests would give their sons (and probably to a lesser extent their daughter’s) cushy religious jobs. I have heard it was more about limiting corruption than sacrificing yourself for Jesus.
Nope. No capiche.
Catholics start with a presumption that human sexuality is divine and it is divine because of the telos of creating children. Secularists (by and large) view sexuality as just something that humans do. The bedrock assumptions could not be more different.
Is there any other mention of masturbation in the bible? Serious question.
Worthy of a post in an of itself. A wonderful case for small c conservatism and Chesterton’s fence.
That’s so dear! You remember!
It’s my Mom who said it. She died, recently, so it is especially sweet to have her mentioned. Thank you, Zafar.
Then it depends on if the hurt is intentional, among other things.
And you see, that’s also a basis for how things get to the way they are now: lots of changes, over centuries/milenia/more, caused by “hurt” from doing things poorly leading to tribes not thriving, etc.
So if you take change that “hurt” “naturally” over centuries/millenia/longer, versus arguably deliberate “hurt” inflicted by those with an agenda who want things to be the way they want them to be, RIGHT NOW – because if it takes another century or millenium, THEY won’t get to enjoy it in THEIR lifetime – seeking to drastically change or even basically totally undo what took centuries/millenia/longer to develop… well, hopefully you see the problem?
For the record, I still maintain that the sexual behaviors of other people aren’t any of my business—I have no idea what my gay or lesbian friends get up to, and —thank you so much, now shush—-no need to know.
God’s view of certain sexual acts is one of the subjects I plan to bring up with Him when I get the chance, out of sheer, intellectual curiosity, though it isn’t the first question I’ll be asking.
Given that plain old, missionary-position sexual intercourse can be made into an act of violence and hatred (rape), it doesn’t seem impossible to me that behaviors that sound icky to me could, in the right context, express love.
But that is by-the-by; what I actually need to know, in this life, and in my job, is: “Who is this dead person’s Primary Mourner?” Other decisions flow from that identification: who gets priority when it comes to following the ambulance to the E.R., who gets to make certain decisions about medical care, whom do I notify first about the death, who chooses the funeral home, who gets to see and grieve over the body?
Regarding fertility, or the propriety of sex in marriage considering timing, ovulation, pregnancy or whatnot, the humans do the sex act, and God weaves the baby in the womb. Leave what’s human to the humans and what’s God’s to God.
And regarding the nature of marriage, the providential vision of Christ wedding His Church, is as much as anything the purpose for marriage. Marriage was created to foreshadow the union of the Church with her God. This is a mystery of sorts, but it shows that there is more to marriage than just the fundamental command to procreate.
And it establishes marriage as something greater than we see, and that must conform to our Creator’s will about it as a matter of trust and belief in Him who said it: heterosexual sex is the command no matter how you feel about it, or want to rationalize it.
If you don’t agree with this, you’re disagreeing with God himself. And that’s between the two of you.
I don’t know if I am disagreeing with God because I am not convinced that the Bible is 100 percent accurate in its representation what God commanded and did. Maybe God was misquoted.
The tension between conservatives and progressives is a healthy one for any society. Without conservatives it has no ballast to preserve it, without progressives it stagnates and decays.
This doesn’t really argue for one thing or the other, but personal situation comes into both positions. Meaning if something is comfortable for me then I’m more inclined to conserve it, and the opposite if it causes me pain. All of us have confirmation bias (?) about this stuff.
The greatest pain in the United States is not economic but spiritual. People are killing themselves with drugs and alcohol not because of economic deprivation (though that doesn’t help) but because they lack strong families and they can’t talk to their dad. This is because people have procreative sex without getting married. Sex robots can help prevent this terrible outcome.
I cannot see traditional Catholic morality having a strong influence on anybody but a minority of Catholics. Sex robots might seriously mitigate human suffering by preventing foolish conception. Forgive me for diverting the conversation, but I am always surprised that people are freaked out about homosexuals rather than irresponsible pro-creative sex.
Even if G-d does exist and the Catholic teachings are real, humans won’t stop irresponsible pro-creative sex without sex robots or immersive VR pornography. The Catholic Church in the medieval era accepted prostitution in order to prevent rape and homosexuality. (I think there was a trend of homosexuality in Florence and the Catholic Church responded by allowing more brothels. I saw this on a history channel documentary.)
I am surprised at how many people respond to this argument by pointing out it isn’t ideal. Human beings will never be ideal. We have police for when every other institution fails and we ought to have sex robots for the lower classes to prevent them from perpetuating poverty and crime.
Adding sex robots will have unintended consequences because everything has unintended consequences. But the alternatives of not changing have such bad consequences it’s worth changing the status quo. I see next to zero possibility that we will turn against homosexuals or turn towards abstinence and since single motherhood is poison in our culture, might as well go with the next less bad thing.
The objections are that this makes people isolated and indifferent to their fellow man, or woman or what have you. Some of that will totally happen, however divorce and single motherhood has seemed to do more to isolate people than sex robots ever could.
On a related note, conception isn’t going away. We need to figure out how to get on in the world that we are in where many more people cannot believe in G-d and porn and contraception are readily available.
Who is intentionally hurting the other? The group that wants its pain eased now, or the group that’s willing for others pain to continue indefinitely “just in case”?
Depends on perspective, right?
Gotta disagree with your basic premise there. Progressives of the French Revolution/BLM progressives don’t make anything useful. The kind of conservatives who want to preserve Female Genital Mutilation or Jim Crow also leave me cold. (Both groups tend to be Democrats.)
Some sort of classical liberalism that emerges from decent religion (Buddhism and Confucianism could probably work as well as Christianity) is what leads to human flourishing. There are many different interpretations of classical liberalism and we can argue about what works best but classical liberalism is what progresses humanity and conserves what is good.
Society makes something from their conflict.
The French Revolution broke a regime where something like 80% of taxes were spent on Versailles whole ordinary people went hungry. That was long term excellent for France.
BLM – too soon to tell.
What happens when the “progressives” are not actually… progressive? That’s the name they picked for themselves, once “liberal” became thought of as “offensive” (the euphemism treadmill at work again…) but it’s not an accurate description. Their “new” ideas are often 100 years old or more, and have been disproven time and again.
But if homosexuals are the ones experiencing pain, doesn’t that mean THEY should change, not everyone else?