Why Rush Limbaugh is Wrong to Support Homosexual Civil Unions

Speaking on his radio show [Thursday], famed conservative talk show personality Rush Limbaugh said that he supports same-sex civil unions.  Reacting to critics of musician Elton John, who performed at Limbaugh’s recent wedding, Limbaugh stated: “Elton John is on the same page as I am, as is Obama on gay marriage.  He’s for civil unions, but he’s not for marriage.”

Limbaugh’s stance is common among conservatives, but is nonetheless misguided and will inevitably lead to the redefinition of marriage.

The question is not so much about marriage, but about homosexual acts.  The acts are harmful to the individuals who engage in them. They are harmful physically, emotionally and spiritually.

Suggesting that one would oppose same-sex ‘marriage’ but support same-sex civil unions sends the wrong message to those engaging in the destructive behavior.  Such a compromise undermines the central issue in that it would demonstrate a lack of concern for those participating in homosexual activity.

Moving from tolerance of homosexual activity to legal recognition is a serious matter.  Laws teach people what is right and wrong and thus homosexual acts will implicitly be given the stamp of approval where such legal recognition is granted.  The young will be given the false impression that this behavior is safe and acceptable, or even good.

Society has a duty to legally recognize and support married couples since they are, through procreation, the source for the continuation of human life and thus society itself.  Homosexual couples cannot properly procreate and thus have no such claim to societal recognition.

Then comes the common objection: “But what about IVF? Can’t homosexual couples procreate that way?”  IVF is, however, in addition to being destructive of human life with countless human embryos lost in the process, unhealthy for the egg donor and the child conceived.  Moreover, it deprives the child the right to be conceived in the loving sexual union of a husband and wife.  Most poignantly, it deprives the child of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood.

In the final analysis, Limbaugh and all conservatives who advocate for homosexual civil unions are themselves dealing the death-knell for the true definition of marriage.  Legal recognition of homosexual civil unions will inevitably (and has in many jurisdictions) lead to homosexual ‘marriage.’

The only way to preserve marriage is to confront the struggle at its root – to warn of the dangers of homosexual acts: their dangers to society and to children, but especially to those engaged in such behaviors.

With regard to persons engaged in such behavior or identifying with it, there must never be unjust discrimination.  All gay bashing, name-calling and the like should be condemned.  However, there must be discrimination on this front, a just discrimination, to preserve societal recognition for marriage between one man and one woman.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • Kathryn

    “The only way to preserve marriage is to confront the struggle at its root – to warn of the dangers of homosexual acts: their dangers to society and to children, but especially to those engaged in such behaviors.”

    Uh, not true. The only way to preserve marriage is to stop: fornicating, contracepting/sterilizing/aborting, and divorcing.

    Not something the greater Christian community really wants to hear.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Why Rush Limbaugh is Wrong to Support Homosexual Civil Unions | Catholic Exchange -- Topsy.com

  • Joe DeVet

    I think we must defend marriage on every front where it is attacked. For starters, BOTH same-sex “marriage” or civil union should be opposed, AND moral abuses by married and single heterosexuals.

    Seems to me we need to figure out a way to bring natural-law arguments into the debate as well. Else the discussion becomes one of secular trade-offs, where questions of “harm” to individuals are all we have to argue. Such a debate boils down quickly to considerations of personal preference and political freedom (to harm myself for the sake of gratification, such as with smoking or overeating). Our side cannot win the debate on these terms!!

  • Pingback: Is Rush Limbaugh still a friend to Catholics? | Catholic Investigative Journal

MENU