David Brody on gay marriage in the 2012 election

In the last hectic days before this week’s crucial New Hampshire primary, the GOP candidates let loose with some of their most pointed and personal attacks on one another. But for all their differences, during last weekend’s ABC News Republican Primary Debate, the candidates who were asked about it all came down on the same side of a contentious social issue: gay marriage.
Even though the consensus is that next November’s election will hinge on the economy, we wondered if issues like gay marriage might help determine the outcome in a few closely divided states with a large number of evangelical voters. For more about that, we are joined by David Brody.  He is the chief political correspondent for the Christian Broadcasting Network, which broadcasts the 700 Club and other programs. He joins host Maria Hinojosa from New Hampshire.

Watch the rest of the segments from this episode.

 

Comments

  • Tmendell

    It does not make any difference, or I should  say live and let live,

  • Tmendell

    What difference does it make. It has nothing to do  with what we need to ge us out of this r oudepression. Let us vote with rational thinking not stupidity.

  • Scjdirac

    Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. When couples marry they become “husbands and wives” and potentially “fathers and mothers”. Redefining traditional marriage minimizes the important role that both mothers and fathers play in the structure of family ( the fundamental unit of society) and will have long lasting negative consequences on our society. This is why defending traditional marriage should be an important political and cultural issue in the upcoming election.

  • Citizen

    Families are important; you can’t logically have it both ways. If marriage is important, it is important because it defines the family. The family defines our values to a large extent. And people want to call their homosexual unions “marriages” because they crave the approval and legitamacy of society.

    If it was not important to homosexuals they would not be fighting tooth-and-nail for gay marriage. If it was not important to traditional conservatives and religious people, they would not be fighting to maintain the tradition of marriage which dates back hundreds, even thousands of years.

    What people mean when they say there are “more important things” is “Go away, I wish no one was opposed to my point of view”. No, there is no more important matter than the state of the family. If, as Kipling said, “The child is the father of the man”, then the quality of the marriage will give rise to the state of the family. The cumulative state of our families will determine the strength of our values and our society.

    If we destroy marriage, we destroy the family – and that is important.

  • Elliott M.D. (psychiatrist)

        There is a singular reason that Conservative Evangelicals (as well as Mormons) need to fight a redefinition of marriage.Religiousfreedom and special gay rights (Hate Speech, same sex marriage) cannot occupy the same common space/society. Either one party or the other will wind up marginalized, excluded from expressing themselves in the public square and put in the closet.
       As it looks, the promotion of the Gay Agenda (repeal of DOMA, marriage equality, lowering the age of consent) silences the speech of those guided by Biblical principles.

       Madsen and Kirk in their 1989 work, “After the Ball”, laid out the means of inflicting the Gay Agenda onto society. The authors, trained in clinical psychology and advertising devised a program which has been remarkably successful.    Simply, it calls for a three pronged attack: 1) Flooding, 2) Jamming and 3) Conversion.  In order to make homosexuality acceptable, their marketing program called for a toning down of the Gay Liberation Front mantra of “We’re here, we’re queer and we’re coming after your children” and portraying homosexuals as non-threatening, average citizens.
      
       Flooding consists using popular media and now, even public education to put gayness in the face of the average American to such an extent that it becomes non-controversial and even boring. To this end, straight Joe Sixpack will see homosexuality as a normal variant, like vanilla icecream.
       Jamming means ad hominim attacks on anyone questioning the tenants of the Gay Agenda. Quickly labeling opponents as ‘homophobic’, or hateful, spiteful and intolerant. Simply to manipulate the cultural landscape so as to marginalize, deligitimize and finally make illegal expression of opposition. In the advanced stage, this would take the form of special protections from psychological harm stemming from verbal opposition to homosexuality, same sex marriage. Jamming is the ultimate in promoting intolerance, particularly against a traditional Christian conservative, Biblical worldview.
       Conversion is where the laws of the land condone homosexuality, gay marriage, gay adoption and suppress any reasoned challenges. Laws such as in California, requiring gay history and homosexual sex education beginning in elementary school are indicators of how successfully Madsen and Kirk’s program has been implemented over the past 22 years.

         “Propaganda”(1928) written by Edward Bernays is the guidestone for the shaping of public opinion. Madsen and Kirk have exemplified the late 20th century application of the principles, just as Joseph Goebels applied the same principles in promoting the Big Lie in his society. The question we need to ask, is why has there never been an open debate on the benefits of the LGBT rights agenda for the society as a whole. It is always centered entirely upon the “rights” of the homosexuals. Given that homosexuality has been traditionally and Biblically viewed as antisocial or abominable, certainly there would need to have been a demonstration of the social benefits to society as a whole. Thanks to the jamming and conversion methodologies, we are entering the unchartered territory of a Brave New World, with our eyes wide shut!

  • Jd50201216

    It makes all the difference in the world.  The traditional marriage is only one way and that’s God’s way between ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.  Anyone and everyone trying to change God’s law and teachings are turning there backs on God.  It’s total ignorance and disrespect.  That is immoral, indecent and a mortal sin to commit such acts, which is exactly that, a grave mortal sin to go against God and his teachings.  It’s as simple as that.  This so called subject of ‘gay marriage’ is disgusting, to say the least.  How do you think AIDS got started???

  • Wheeee6977

    Simply put..Just do the right thing people.Stop for a second n think about this. Especially in light of our up n coming holiday. People are people, human beings are human bzeings. Each and every person deserves the right to live whatever life they so wish,as long as it does not infringe on another’s civil liberty. I strongly believe that by continuing to pursue this banningvgay marriage we are teaching our children and our future it is OK to be prejudice…AND. ITS NOT!

  • jan

    I guess it comes down to whether you are or are not willing to chance losing your child because you don’t approve of their sexual orientation.  I’m not.  This story really underscored the tragedy of parents who are unwilling to learn to accept their child for a reason that is, when you step back and look at it, rather foolish on the part of the parents. 

  • Pace

    See Thorstein Veblen, “The barbarian status of women,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 4, pp. 503-14 (1899).

  • Elliott

       I understand the dilemma that people face when a family member comes out. I know of poor resolutions, where the gay person is ‘cast out’; however, there is a humane  and loving solution that neither rejects the person nor endorses the LGBT program.  One can love a child with whom you disagree on their sexual identity, behavior or inclinations as a Bible/traditionally oriented parent. It is necessary to establish boundaries which are mutually respected. For example, a mother can continue to love her son, who has declared himself to be gay; however, she has every right to set boundaries on behavior within her home.
       It becomes tricky when the gay person demands nothing short of full endorsement or when the parent demands they cease being gay. It is possible to have same sex attractions without engaging in behavior and without subscribing to the LGBT identity or agenda.
       For Bible believing Christian parents, you want the best for your son or daughter. You can accept the person and still pray for their “restitution”.
        I  have Bible believing friends who experience same sex attraction (by the way it is normal during latency, when pre-puberty boys and girls find the opposite sex to “have cooties” and prefer bonding with persons of the same gender. This is why I believe that it is not the best idea to be grooming youngsters with the false notion that if they are gay if they prefer relationships with kids of the same gender. The NEA endorsed premature eroticization of normal children friendship/bonding is right out of Brave New World! Some would see it as a recruitment tool perpetrated by adult homosexuals.

  • jan

    A couple of thoughts, Elliott.  The idea that parents will inevitably find themselves in an argument with gay teens wanting/insisting to bring home their partners as opposed to heterosexual teens who do not want to bring home their partners is silly.  Cast your mind back to your own teenage years and consider whether you would have wanted to bring someone home for sex underneath your parent’s roof while they were at home.  If you did, you probably weren’t a normal teenager.     
    The other idea that homosexuality is a matter of training/normalization by other gays is equally false.  You’re ignoring a Swedish study based on brain scans which indicates that sexual preference begins before birth. 

    And that takes us to another blind spot that some people sometimes have; the refusal to see that in this instance demanding a person stop being gay (or you can fill in this spot with anything short of a crime) is rejection of that child or person. 

  • Elliott

    I was considering adult children. The situation that was painful and poorly resolved was adult heterosexual child not allowing his mother, who’d left their father to live with her lesbian partner, to visit her grandchildren. The  children were counseled by their pastor to cut off contact ‘for the sake of their children’. I am sure that a better solution could have been reached.
       Regarding children, same sex attraction should not necessarily result in homosexual behavior and certainly not in LGBT identity. Part of the differnece between humans and animals is the presence of moral restraint. The mantra of our past two generations has been “Just do it!”. There is a high socio/political cost to everyone doing what is right in their own eyes.

  • jan

    I agree.  A better solution could have and should have been reached.  My grandparents were the people I could talk to.  The love they showed me, the conversations I had with them, and insights they gave me were invaluable and were not something I could ever have gotten from my parents.

    Second paragraph?  There you go again, assuming that people who do not do what you do and say what you say are immoral.  That is a blind spot and it is limiting.  I always found it interesting that my grandparents were more liberal than my mother who shares your idea that people who do not do what you do and say are immoral.  It flies in the face of conventional, accepted thinking.  You need to set aside your judge’s robes (you aren’t entitled to wear them) and start seeing others,not as someone that is less than you are but as someone who is equal to you, even if or when they do not make the same decisions that you would make. 

  • Lauren

    @ Elliot
    You suggest that you can somehow still “love” your child, without acknowledging or accepting the singularly defining, loving relationship in your child’s adult life.  If I say I love you, but have no respect for the marriage or life’s commitment that you hold most dear, then is that truly love?  Love requires respect; without it, you have at best toleration or obligation.  
    You are suggesting that setting a “boundary” on your child, whereby they must disavow their marriage / civil-union in your home, is somehow a good part of Christian parenting.  Can you imagine if your parents had treated your wife that way, after years of being together through thick and thin? 
    I wonder if the word “love” carries anything like acceptance, or genuine respect, in such a “Christian” vocabulary.

  • Vink80

    Let them play their sex games —- live together or whatever but DO NOT CALL IT A  MARRIAGE
    UNLESS THEY CAN PRODUCE (not adopt) CHILDREN.
          PRODUCING AND RAISING CHILDREN IS WHAT MARRIAGE IS ABOUT —–
          Proper use of sex organs will accomplish their intended purpose.
          Pornographic and sensual use is a complete side trip ~~~~~~