National Review Comes Out for Homosexual “Marriage”

The managing editor for the National Review has published a long article arguing for same sex “marriage.”

I should have known that, with the onset of real persecution and the use of civil rights legislation against Christians, the National Review would not hesitate to jump ship and try to redefine conservatism as pro-same-sex “marriage.”

Jason Steorts writes the sustained attack on natural society: “An Equal Chance at Love: Why We Should Recognize Same-Sex Marriage.”

Steorts writes with some amazing assumptions he expects us all to take for granted. The first is that it is an entirely arbitrary coincidence that lovemaking between a man and a woman can result in offspring. The fact that human beings come in two sexes, and that they reproduce in this way, is not allowed to tell us anything about the psychological well-being of human beings or what are their basic relational needs or who they are supposed to be joined to for life.

[See also, “Does the Senate’s Homosexual Bill Go With or Against Belief In Evolution? Dare We Ask?]

There are adult human beings who fall in love with children, with animals, and with groups of various sexes, with a single person of the opposite sex and, in this essay, also with a single person of the same sex. Steorts wishes us to forget about the rest and only worry about the two last categories. In his mind, from the outset, the only reason why we would not all immediately grant that the romantic feelings and a desire to be considered “married” are just as legitimate in both cases is because we are worried about begetting and raising children.

The way we raise and beget children tells us nothing about who we should direct our affections toward, what kind of person we are meant to love, or what kind of people we are. Other than the intent to beget children, there is no reason to prefer heterosexuality to homosexuality. Ones romantic feelings are the sole determiner of what counts as “adult fulfillment.”

I don’t find that credible. Do you?

Furthermore, as Steortz progresses in his argument, he clearly assumes that all sexual ethics must be determined without any regard to whether or not we are created by God and whether or not the true God would have any design for our relationships.

This is the precondition for a conversation about Homosexual “marriage” published in the National Review. I am not making this up.

When Steortz decides to address the fact that there might be a Christian in his audience, he identifies it not with the Bible or the creation story in Genesis, but with early Christian monastic superstitions that despised having sex for fun with one’s spouse. I’m supposed to forget about Ephesians 5 because of “the early Christians” as Steortz represents them.

Like Joe Biden and President Obama, Steortz is happy to tell Chrisitans they must change their doctrine.

What traditionalists must in honesty be said to reject is, if not a deep aspect of personal identity per se, then the expression of a deep aspect of personal identity. And the significance of that rejection is often minimized in ways so glib and irrelevant as to suggest that those who offer them refuse to grapple seriously with the issue — for example, their facile observation that there are many people who, for whatever reason, are unable to achieve romantic fulfillment (as if being unable to achieve it were the same thing as being told not to try), and their facile observation that “we are all sinners” (as if what counts as a sin were not in question here)

Of course Steortz never seriously grapples with anything. The fact that he is the one being facile in accepting romantic feelings as the self-evident path to adult fulfillment never enters his mind. It is precisely “a deep aspect of personal identity” that is at stake. Homosexuals are destroying themselves and hurting those they love. They need to repent.

But the National Review is now going to promote their agenda, their facile view of Christianity, and of themselves.

Years of conservative patronage have come to this.