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. SteveSc Member
    SteveSc
    @SteveSc

    The Utah compromise will not last.  The Gay Marriage fundamentalists will see to that.

    Is it just me or did Jonathan mispronounce John Kasich’s name?  Odd mistake for someone he professes to like…

    • #1
  2. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @TempTime

    I’m tired of this story line.  Let’s move onto the next one  —  married couples who cheat on their partners claiming they can’t help themselves, they don’t have a choice, it’s just the way they were made and it’s hateful the way people won’t accept them.

    • #2
  3. BThompson Inactive
    BThompson
    @BThompson

    I find it more than ironic that Jonathan chooses to wave away the real injustices of people losing their jobs, having their businesses shut down, and having their property get damaged by radical gay rights activists, all abetted by the media, and then claim that someone deserves to be disqualified from public office for not showing enough empathy if he believes that attending a gay wedding is a violation of his religious beliefs.

    You see faith and religious conviction are disposable anachronisms. What is really important is that you make everyone feel special and loved. You can ignore the feelings and well-being of people with religious faith because if in your mind you are a bigger victim of society, then their problems don’t really mean anything. Their plight should be trivialized as merely a random anomaly. He is so shameless in his hypocrisy he makes the ludicrously presumptuous claim that he’s sure Pope Francis is on his side and would happily attend a gay wedding.

    But I shouldn’t really worry, once Jonathan sees Christians getting beat up in the streets he’ll be right there for us. Thanks, Jonathan, you are a man of real principle, that is if one is allowed to confuse empathy with principle and then apply it selectively and self-servingly.

    • #3
  4. user_989419 Inactive
    user_989419
    @ProbableCause

    Hindus believe that cows are sacred.  Is it fair to regard a Hindu as a loathsome human being, if he declines to attend a barbecue put on to celebrate the birthday of a friend who he knows and loves?

    • #4
  5. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Is there a schedule posted somewhere that lays out the times Ricochet podcasts are done?  I hear from time to time that the speakers check comments during their podcasts for input, but . . . well . . . I guess I’m ignorant.

    • #5
  6. Grendel Member
    Grendel
    @Grendel

    That’s Vol. 6 Number 9.

    • #6
  7. user_51254 Member
    user_51254
    @BereketKelile

    I have to say that I found Johnathan’s comments loathsome too. Even worse, it’s just childish to think that a person who doesn’t approve of everything I do doesn’t really care about me. That’s not empathy; that’s just bleeding-heart nonsense. Not to mention the ridiculous distinction between going to your relative’s wedding but not a strangers, as if there’s a difference in principle.

    I think Johnathan’s sentiments are indicative of the problem. This is about gay legitimacy, not gay rights. And that will not happen so long as there are people who refuse to tow the line on homosexuality as something fantastic, or at least a benign alternative. That means an inevitable persecution of religious people, which has already begun to a small degree.

    • #7
  8. PsychLynne Inactive
    PsychLynne
    @PsychLynne

    I listened to the podcast while I was cooking dinner–meaning I probably didn’t catch every word or nuance in the conversation between Rod and Jonathan.

    I will say this, I fall on the “Rod” side of thinking that the culture is post-Christian, etc.   However, Jonathan said something that I think gets overlooked, he mentioned that the Mormon church came with love and openness, not to giving up their beliefs, but to discussion.

    I understand that the activists of either side can’t do that–it’s not in their nature.  But we non-activist types, on either side ought to be able to have that kind of reasoned, respectful conversation.  For me, it’s easy to focus on the policy or legal implications and let that passion infect personal conversations.

    I’ve probably managed to offend everyone by sounding mushy, but I keep c0ming back to the fact that no one will be tolerant of someone they can’t even have a civil conversation with.

    • #8
  9. Butters Inactive
    Butters
    @CommodoreBTC

    Nothing turns me off more than discussions about homosexuality. I have zero interest in the subject. Wasting oxygen on it plays right into the left’s hands.

    • #9
  10. SteveSc Member
    SteveSc
    @SteveSc

    PsychLynne:I’ve probably managed to offend everyone by sounding mushy, but I keep c0ming back to the fact that no one will be tolerant of someone they can’t even have a civil conversation with.

    Like all the kind words gays had for Blacks and Mormons after Prop 8 passed in CA?

    • #10
  11. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Has no one on this podcast heard the non-religious case against SSM? Was Ryan Anderson busy?

    The disagreement is not over equal protection, it is and always has been a disagreement over the antecedent question of what civil marriage was, is, and should be – and why. Why do we even have civil marriage? What purpose does it serve? Is marriage the proper instrument to serve the legitimate purposes of private partnerships (not necessarily exclusively same sex partnerships)?

    • #11
  12. user_48342 Member
    user_48342
    @JosephEagar

    Okay, I was shocked by the bit about gay activists trying to use the law to make people like them.  I believe it, but it’s unfathomable to me how anyone could feel such an absurd level of entitlement.

    People from my family expect to be disliked, both because of our Mormon faith and, frankly, because of our ethnic background.   That is we live our lives, and it’s how we interact with society.  Thus when it comes to civil rights, we are big believers in pluralism and compromise.  People should be able to live together in the same geographic region without having to like each other.  This is very real to me; more than one of my ancestors were driven from their homes for religious or ethnic reasons.

    We are in very dangerous territory here, people.  A society where it is politically acceptable to coerce others to like you is not a free society.  Nor is it a livable one.

    • #12
  13. Albert Arthur Coolidge
    Albert Arthur
    @AlbertArthur

    SteveSc:

    PsychLynne:I’ve probably managed to offend everyone by sounding mushy, but I keep c0ming back to the fact that no one will be tolerant of someone they can’t even have a civil conversation with.

    Like all the kind words gays had for Blacks and Mormons after Prop 8 passed in CA?

    Did black people get much criticized for that? I know that Prop 8 passed due to black votes, but didn’t the Mormons get all the blame?

    • #13
  14. user_51254 Member
    user_51254
    @BereketKelile

    Albert Arthur:

    SteveSc:

    PsychLynne:I’ve probably managed to offend everyone by sounding mushy, but I keep c0ming back to the fact that no one will be tolerant of someone they can’t even have a civil conversation with.

    Like all the kind words gays had for Blacks and Mormons after Prop 8 passed in CA?

    Did black people get much criticized for that? I know that Prop 8 passed due to black votes, but didn’t the Mormons get all the blame?

    I remember the comments from gays trying to say that blacks sold them out without explicitly saying so. It was absolutely hilarious.

    • #14
  15. Mantis9 Inactive
    Mantis9
    @Mantis9

    I’m little disappointed in both guests’ answers to the Hugh Hewitt question. First, I think a personal question like “Would you attend a gay wedding?” is a legitimate question to ask a candidate unlike Mr. Dreher. I’m interested in learning how a difficult decision is navigated by a potential leader and where principle and feelings cross to inform that decision. Second, I find it a complete wonder that Mr. Gilbert is unable to imagine that a religious person might choose not to attend a gay wedding out of love for the person involved in the wedding. If there is an all-knowing, all-loving God that deems practicing homosexuality a sin, by which it separates His loved creature from Him with eternal consequences for their immortal soul, its seems a bit grotesque to find a reason to celebrate such an occasion. Principles inform loving behavior, not override them, whether you agree with those principles or not is another issue.

    This last point opens up to the larger issue that Mr. Long seems to share with Mr. Gilbert, which is public religiosity.  As a person of faith, my religious convictions inform most of my decisions. I’ve seriously considered that homosexuality fits well into the same categories of religious belief. It makes pronouncements on ethics, human nature, and eschatology like any other religion. Would Mr. Gilbert leave the beliefs he holds about the nature of reality out of policy decisions as he would expect from me? Of course not.

    • #15
  16. BuckeyeSam Inactive
    BuckeyeSam
    @BuckeyeSam

    Gilbert is so high on Kasich he doesn’t know how to pronounce his name. I thought Lileks was an intelligent guy. Kasich has an agile mind? The guy is a meathead. He completely screwed up the kind of PEU legislation that Walker got enacted in Wisconsin. I’m a Christian who refuses to be lectured to by a guy who cites Matthew 25 to show government intervention down Ohioans’ throats.

    Wake up. Conservatives in Ohio hate him. Who knew in 2010? In 2014, I voted for him hoping the Ohio House and Senate could manhandle him–no such luck.

    • #16
  17. PsychLynne Inactive
    PsychLynne
    @PsychLynne

    Bereket Kelile:

    Albert Arthur:

    SteveSc:

    PsychLynne:I’ve probably managed to offend everyone by sounding mushy, but I keep c0ming back to the fact that no one will be tolerant of someone they can’t even have a civil conversation with.

    Like all the kind words gays had for Blacks and Mormons after Prop 8 passed in CA?

    Did black people get much criticized for that? I know that Prop 8 passed due to black votes, but didn’t the Mormons get all the blame?

    I remember the comments from gays trying to say that blacks sold them out without explicitly saying so. It was absolutely hilarious.

    Seeing them tie themselves in knots over intersecting victims is hilarious.  But, just to reiterate–I’m not talking about the activist wings on either side.  And the public humiliation/abuse is horrifying and wrong.  Yet, for me, I have to be able to have a conversation on the personal level or I’m not living in any way that is consistent with my values–nor do I have any chance at having any influence.

    • #17
  18. Indaba Member
    Indaba
    @

    PsychLynne:I listened to the podcast while I was cooking dinner–meaning I probably didn’t catch every word or nuance in the conversation between Rod and Jonathan.

    I will say this, I fall on the “Rod” side of thinking that the culture is post-Christian, etc. However, Jonathan said something that I think gets overlooked, he mentioned that the Mormon church came with love and openness, not to giving up their beliefs, but to discussion.

    I understand that the activists of either side can’t do that–it’s not in their nature. But we non-activist types, on either side ought to be able to have that kind of reasoned, respectful conversation. For me, it’s easy to focus on the policy or legal implications and let that passion infect personal conversations.

    I’ve probably managed to offend everyone by sounding mushy, but I keep c0ming back to the fact that no one will be tolerant of someone they can’t even have a civil conversation with.

    Agreed.

    There have been very good discussions on Ricochet about this topic but I notice they are kept on the member feed only.

    • #18
  19. Indaba Member
    Indaba
    @

    Excellent podcast on a divisive topic. This quality and wide range of opinions is why I am renewing my membership with Ricochet. I learn so much from other view points.

    • #19
  20. user_1698 Inactive
    user_1698
    @JeremiahWasABullfrog

    What follows is a passionate, intelligent, and (most importantly) respectful discussion on gay marriage, religious freedom, and how the two might coexist.

    Really?  When your guest says that he would consider people like me “loathsome” because I could not celebrate an occasion that my religious and personal beliefs don’t condone?  And then makes the ridiculous claim that Pope Francis would certainly go to a gay wedding?  (Think again, by the way.)

    And think again about whether popular sentiment is truly on the side of those who would redefine marriage to suit their agenda.  Voters in 31 states voted to keep the definition of marriage as it has been for thousands of years — only to have their voices overruled by judicial elites who know better, I suppose.  Polls can often reflect what the pollsters want to hear, rather than what the polled actually believe in their hearts.  If we had a national election, with secret ballot, about the issue today, I think many of “those who know better” would be surprised to see what Americans really think.

    And that doesn’t mean that they are bigots.  People can be very accepting and even loving of gay people without being able to endorse gay marriage, for reasons that BThompson articulated so well in a previous post.

    Keep pushing against deeply-held religious and personal beliefs, and keep labeling the people who have sincere disagreements with you as “loathsome,” and I don’t think you will like the world you have created.

    • #20
  21. user_494971 Contributor
    user_494971
    @HankRhody

    I looked to the other side. “Lasciante ogni separanza voi chi’entrarte” If I’m remembering that correctly.

    • #21
  22. Rightfromthestart Coolidge
    Rightfromthestart
    @Rightfromthestart

    I may listen again but to the question of  ‘Well. what is the ‘extreme’ view?’ I believe the guest gave what he considers an acceptable view without defining what he considers ‘extreme’ this week.  Activists like to keep the definition of ‘extreme ‘ rather nebulous so they can keep moving it .

    • #22
  23. Idahoklahoman Member
    Idahoklahoman
    @Idahoklahoman

    Jonathan is exhibiting the typical uncritical thinking of an enthusiast. “Gay marriage is nice, Pope Francis is nice, therefore Pope Francis would come to my gay wedding!” That’s Valley Girl logic. Pope Francis, believing that the behavior that would follow from a gay wedding would endanger one’s immortal soul, would no more help  celebrate it than he would attend a party to celebrate one’s new meth habit. And if he politely declines for such reasons, he is a “loathsome” human being? Jonathan is not blowing me away as the voice of either reason or tolerance on this issue.

    • #23
  24. user_5186 Inactive
    user_5186
    @LarryKoler

    Yes, the real agenda and jack-booted tendencies of the gay radicals is so very evident in that word loathsome. Does he really want to say that? Doesn’t this fit into the topic of fighting words? The only reason people like Jonathan can think this way is because they all believe that they are on top. It’s because they know:

    We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. [George Orwell]

    Well, they would be smart to be a little more tolerant and accommodate differences. There are rough men available on both sides and people can be pushed too hard and too intolerantly.

    Jonathan Gilbert must be a child in his politics. Did you notice how he likes John Kasich because he could really bring the gay vote in? Are there any other topics of interest to Gilbert? What a childish thing to say.

    • #24
  25. Matede Inactive
    Matede
    @MateDe

    Westerna Civilization is on the verge of collapse. In this country we are so obsessed with me, me, me. If you think about it, asking presidential candidates if they would attend a wedding or not, is absurd.

    Iran is on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon and kicking off a nuclear arms race in the middle east one of the most unstable regions in the world,

    Boko Haram has taken a large swath of Nigeria about the size of Belgium. Kidnapping Christian girls and selling them into sexual slavery. This country’s economy has not grown in 5 years, we are trillions of dollars in debt. State and local governments have so much debt that soon a state will declare bankruptcy and we want to know if a presidential candidate will go to a wedding or not.

    It’s madness, we’re too distracted by these issues that we haven’t noticed the Vandels are at the gate and will soon sack the city. We have big, existential problems and these questions to candidates is ridiculous. I’d like to know what they would do when a state declares bankruptcy, what would they do if there was another terrorist attack in this country, What will they do about our trade deficits with our trading partners What will they do about the border.

    I’m not saying social issues aren’t important to the broader society but we have HUGE problems that need addressing.

    • #25
  26. user_423610 Member
    user_423610
    @Spencer3861

    When Mr. Gilbert described someone who would not attend a gay wedding because of religious conviction as “loathsome “, that convinced me that he is part of the movement that demands that everyone must publicly bow down to the new secular religion, or else be cast out. It’s amazing that people who have been victims of intolerance in the past are so quick be intolerant themselves.

    • #26
  27. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    I’m sorry to say that is not, and never will be, a question of legal equality. Like the civil rights movement of the 1960s it has morphed into the age old quests for money, power, and revenge.

    It is not enough to achieve equality, there must be retribution. You must be made to feel guilty. You must be made to self-flagellate and suffer. You must be made to feel their shame. And then you must take up this burden unceasingly and pay penance through generations to come.

    There is no common ground nor reasonable accommodation when only one side wants it.

    • #27
  28. Hibernian Faithful Inactive
    Hibernian Faithful
    @HibernianFaithful

    Great dialogue Re so-called same sex “marriage” but I must disagree on the position that a refusal to attend a so-called same sex “marriage” because of adherence to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church makes me vile. I can give my approval of a celebration of what I believe is an intrinsic evil; that does not mean I condemn or hate individuals who engage in such intrinsic evils because I can not. They are no more or no less than me. My same sex attracted friends and co-workers are among the people who helped (forced) me live the whole if my faith.

    Pope Francis would never go to a so-called same sex wedding, but like Blessed Theresa of Calcutta would give his last full measure to any individual including, same sex attracted individuals.

    • #28
  29. Ricochet Contributor
    Ricochet
    @TitusTechera

    EJHill:I’m sorry to say that is not, and never will be, a question of legal equality. Like the civil rights movement of the 1960s it has morphed into the age old quests for money, power, and revenge.

    It is not enough to achieve equality, there must be retribution. You must be made to feel guilty. You must be made to self-flagellate and suffer. You must be made to feel their shame. And then you must take up this burden unceasingly and pay penance through generations to come.

    There is no common ground nor reasonable accommodation when only one side wants it.

    People are exactly the kind of people about which our mothers warned us. We just need to find a way to take that into account.

    • #29
  30. BuckeyeSam Inactive
    BuckeyeSam
    @BuckeyeSam

    Gilbert said that he has been fired from a job for being gay. Either name the job or the employer. I don’t doubt that it’s happened in the past, but how recently? And what connection does SSM have to employment and housing discrimination? Beyond that, what connection does requiring bakers, photographers, clergy, and others to participate in SSM ceremonies have to employment and housing discrimination?

    Protection because of status–tendency to same-sex attraction–is one thing. Celebration of homosexual conduct (a voluntary act) is an entirely different matter and to equate homosexual conduct with gender, race, and national origin (all accidents of birth) and religious belief (what we think and believe, so long as it doesn’t spill over into illegal conduct) is absurd.

    Homosexuals don’t want to be accepted; they want what they do in privacy to be endorsed, celebrated, and shouted from the rooftops from sea to shining sea. I’ll pass.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.