inferno

This week, we take on one of the most debated topics on the site: gay marriage, religious freedom, and what the issues mean for the future of the Republican Party. We do it with two guests from opposite sides of the issue: Rod Dreher is an author (read his new book How Dante Can Save Your Life: The Life-Changing Wisdom of History’s Greatest Poemcolumnist, and one of the brightest thinkers in social conservative media. On the other side, Ricochet member Jonathan Gilbert, a gay conservative writer from Los Angeles. What follows is a passionate, intelligent, and (most importantly) respectful discussion on gay marriage, religious freedom, and how the two might coexist. In other words, it’s a shining example of what we mean when we say Ricochet is the home of civil conversation. We hope you’ll tune in.

Music from this week’s episode:

Let’s Call The Whole Thing Off  by Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong

The opening sequence for the Ricochet Podcast was composed and produced by James Lileks.

Oh, hell EJHill.

Yes, you should absolutely subscribe to this podcast. It helps!

Help Ricochet by Supporting Our Sponsors!

Screen Shot 2015-02-20 at 8.56.20 AMThis podcast is brought to you by Harry’s Shave. For the finest shave at the best price, got Harrys.com and use the coupon code RICOCHET at checkout.

 

 

 

Casper-Red-Antler-eyes-mark-011Get premium mattresses for a fraction of the price delivered to your door! Casper is revolutionizing the mattress industry by cutting the cost of dealing with resellers and showrooms and passing that savings directly to the consumer. Get $50 off your first purchase! Go to Casper.com/Ricochet and use the coupon code RICOCHET at checkout.

Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 190 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    Cato Rand:

    Salvatore Padula:Bryan- So on the subject of Cato’s not being libertarian because he makes moral judgments about those who do not attend same sex marriages, I think an important point has been missed about libertarianism. Libertarians do not abstain from making moral judgments about the conduct of others. We just don’t think that considering something “loathsome” is a sufficient justification for state action. As long as Cato doesn’t want to use the apparatus of the state to force your attendance at gay weddings his position is perfectly libertarian. Libertarianism isn’t about social opprobrium; it’s about state coercion.

    Thank you for the backup Sal but having tried to make that point already, I call tell you Brian, or Bryan as he still prefers to be called despite my direct instructions, isn’t buying it. He will not be happy until not only my behavior, but my opinions, conform to his.

    In the immortal words of COL Sherman Potter, “Horse hockey!”

    Nothing Bryan has said remotely suggests his happiness is dependent on either your actions or opinions.  Although, the inflated importance you attach to both is illuminating.

    • #181
  2. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Salvatore Padula:Bryan- So on the subject of Cato’s not being libertarian because he makes moral judgments about those who do not attend same sex marriages, I think an important point has been missed about libertarianism. Libertarians do not abstain from making moral judgments about the conduct of others. We just don’t think that considering something “loathsome” is a sufficient justification for state action. As long as Cato doesn’t want to use the apparatus of the state to force your attendance at gay weddings his position is perfectly libertarian. Libertarianism isn’t about social opprobrium; it’s about state coercion.

    I see. So libertarians are fine with mob pressure, just not government pressure.

    • #182
  3. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Klaatu:

    Cato Rand:

    Salvatore Padula:Bryan- So on the subject of Cato’s not being libertarian because he makes moral judgments about those who do not attend same sex marriages, I think an important point has been missed about libertarianism. Libertarians do not abstain from making moral judgments about the conduct of others. We just don’t think that considering something “loathsome” is a sufficient justification for state action. As long as Cato doesn’t want to use the apparatus of the state to force your attendance at gay weddings his position is perfectly libertarian. Libertarianism isn’t about social opprobrium; it’s about state coercion.

    Thank you for the backup Sal but having tried to make that point already, I call tell you Brian, or Bryan as he still prefers to be called despite my direct instructions, isn’t buying it. He will not be happy until not only my behavior, but my opinions, conform to his.

    In the immortal words of COL Sherman Potter, “Horse hockey!”

    Nothing Bryan has said remotely suggests his happiness is dependent on either your actions or opinions. Although, the inflated importance you attach to both is illuminating.

    Cato has shown contempt for Christians and disdain for someone’s close held beliefs that don’t hurt him in anyway other than in disappointment the person does not come to a ceremony. And for that, Cato calls them immoral, and say they deserve opprobrium.

    But to him, I’m the bad guy. Interesting.

    • #183
  4. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Bryan G. Stephens:

    Salvatore Padula:Bryan- So on the subject of Cato’s not being libertarian because he makes moral judgments about those who do not attend same sex marriages, I think an important point has been missed about libertarianism. Libertarians do not abstain from making moral judgments about the conduct of others. We just don’t think that considering something “loathsome” is a sufficient justification for state action. As long as Cato doesn’t want to use the apparatus of the state to force your attendance at gay weddings his position is perfectly libertarian. Libertarianism isn’t about social opprobrium; it’s about state coercion.

    I see. So libertarians are fine with mob pressure, just not government pressure.

    Excessive harassment would be immoral. Telling someone your opinion is permitted, but can become inconsiderate the same way not acknowledging someone’s prefered gender can be inconsiderate.

    • #184
  5. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Mike H:

    Bryan G. Stephens:

    I see. So libertarians are fine with mob pressure, just not government pressure.

    Excessive harassment would be immoral. Telling someone your opinion is permitted, but can become inconsiderate the same way not acknowledging someone’s prefered gender can be inconsiderate.

    So forcing someone to bake a cake is not OK?

    How about firing me for not going to someone’s wedding?

    Taking away tax exempt status?

    • #185
  6. user_653084 Inactive
    user_653084
    @SalvatorePadula

    Bryan- Do you recognize the distinction between state mandate and social pressure?

    • #186
  7. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Bryan G. Stephens:

    Mike H:

    Bryan G. Stephens:

    I see. So libertarians are fine with mob pressure, just not government pressure.

    Excessive harassment would be immoral. Telling someone your opinion is permitted, but can become inconsiderate the same way not acknowledging someone’s prefered gender can be inconsiderate.

    So forcing someone to bake a cake is not OK?

    Of course, I doubt anyone that’s a member of Ricochet thinks it’s OK.

    How about firing me for not going to someone’s wedding?

    I’d put this under inconsiderate but permissible. What kind of jackass would do that, though?

    Taking away tax exempt status?

    Well, I think taxes are immoral in general, so it would be bad in that respect. I don’t particularly care for the way tax-exempt status is doled out so I don’t know how much sleep I would lose over a particular entity losing it.

    • #187
  8. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Bryan G. Stephens:

    Salvatore Padula:Bryan- So on the subject of Cato’s not being libertarian because he makes moral judgments about those who do not attend same sex marriages, I think an important point has been missed about libertarianism. Libertarians do not abstain from making moral judgments about the conduct of others. We just don’t think that considering something “loathsome” is a sufficient justification for state action. As long as Cato doesn’t want to use the apparatus of the state to force your attendance at gay weddings his position is perfectly libertarian. Libertarianism isn’t about social opprobrium; it’s about state coercion.

    I see. So libertarians are fine with mob pressure, just not government pressure.

    Non-violent mob pressure, precisely.

    • #188
  9. Idahoklahoman Member
    Idahoklahoman
    @Idahoklahoman

    Cato Rand:

    No, you are simply going to make holding the “right” opinions a necessary condition for participation in polite society, the price for not being ostracized for loathsomeness. If that just happens to make one want to mouth the proper pieties, so much the better. I had no idea that this new world of tolerance was going to look so much like Alexandria in 750 AD or Berlin in 1936.

    I’m perfectly happy with that outcome. Your side has long made being heterosexual a necessary condition for participation in polite society and those who were not have been ostracized for loathsomeness. Just as you seem to predict, that social arrangement has forced homosexuals to hide their natures and “mouth” the right lies. What you don’t understand is that it’s always been Berlin 1936 — just not for you.

    You know nothing of me or what “my side” is, but thanks for taking off the mask of tolerance. I am over 50 years old and I can’t remember a time when merely being gay excluded one from polite society. My parents were fans of Liberace and Paul Lind. One of their best friends was a somewhat effeminate “bachelor” who was nevertheless a wonderful person and companion. When gay people were victimized, even murdered, for being gay, the most traditional people I know were outraged. Will they get the same consideration from you when they are discriminated against for an opinion that does not actually harm anyone?

    • #189
  10. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Idahoklahoman:

    Cato Rand:

    You know nothing of me or what “my side” is, but thanks for taking off the mask of tolerance. I am over 50 years old and I can’t remember a time when merely being gay excluded one from polite society. My parents were fans of Liberace and Paul Lind. One of their best friends was a somewhat effeminate “bachelor” who was nevertheless a wonderful person and companion. When gay people were victimized, even murdered, for being gay, the most traditional people I know were outraged. Will they get the same consideration from you when they are discriminated against for an opinion that does not actually harm anyone?

    I too am over 50 years old and I remember the days of social ostracism exceptionally well. If you take a survey of 50+ y/o homosexuals, you will find that my experience in that regard predominates.  Obviously I can’t speak to your parents or their effeminate bachelor friend, but I’m confident that if you inquire more broadly, you will find that 30-40 years ago, most homosexuals were in hiding (unless they were being dragged from the closet by the horror of AIDS).  The closet didn’t exist because of the widespread welcome homosexuals received in polite society.

    • #190
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.