Medved on Obama's Hiroshima speech

http://www.michaelmedved.com/highlight/michaels-reaction-to-president-obamas-speech-at-hiroshima-part-1/

http://www.michaelmedved.com/highlight/michaels-reaction-to-president-obamas-speech-at-hiroshima-part-2/

The Republicans' Self-Inflicted Wounds

Steve has linked some of Mark Levin's comments on the New York values controversy. I agree with the general thrust of Levin's comments, and I think they were worth linking. I want to add the following, though.

The Bad Influence Of Limbaugh, Hannity, Et Al.

There are a lot of bad reasons people have for supporting Donald Trump's presidential campaign. A lot of his supporters name Jeb Bush as their second choice. Since Trump and Bush have the best name recognition among the candidates, it's likely that much of Trump's support at this stage is a result of name recognition. And he's a protest candidate for some people. But a moderate protesting conservatism is supporting Trump for reasons inconsistent with those of a conservative who's supporting Trump in protest of moderation. Then there are the people who are supporting Trump out of anger. But different people are angry for different reasons, sometimes for inconsistent reasons. Even among those with more similar motivations for supporting Trump, such as concern about illegal immigration, they have no reason to think that supporting Trump will accomplish anything significant on that issue. I often see Trump supporters refer to how their critics "don't get it", as if there's one reason or one universal set of reasons people have for supporting Trump, and any critic who doesn't recognize it is guilty of criticizing a movement he doesn't understand. But the fact is that the Trump movement is diverse, and a lot of his supporters don't get that fact. They're the ones who don't get it.

One of the reasons why the Trump movement has been so successful is a reason I haven't seen discussed much. That's what I want to focus on in this post.

How To Lose The Dispute Over Same-Sex Marriage

I just listened to Michael Medved discussing same-sex marriage with a guest who wrote an article on a related subject. I think the guest was on for close to half an hour. He kept referring to same-sex marriage as a right, and he referred to opposition to state recognition of same-sex marriage as evil. As far as I recall, he was never asked where that alleged right comes from, whether people have a right to other forms of marriage as well, such as incestuous marriage and polygamy, or on what basis we should conclude that opposition to state recognition of same-sex marriage is evil. Instead of focusing on a universal aspect of opposite-sex marriage that distinguishes it from same-sex marriage, such as how opposite-sex marriage promotes the unity of the sexes in a way that same-sex marriage can't, Medved focused on how opposite-sex marriage can produce children biologically. His guest raised the usual objection that not all opposite-sex couples can or do have children, whether because of sterility or for some other reason. Medved responded that it wouldn't be appropriate for the government to do something like test people for sterility before recognizing a marriage, but he didn't explain why or explain how his original appeal to the biological production of children remains valid in spite of the objection raised against it. A caller referred to how offended he was, as a Christian, by the position of Medved's guest, and he commented on how some black individuals he knows are offended by the comparison between opposition to same-sex marriage and opposition to interracial marriage. He also referred to how old the opposite-sex view of marriage is. But he never explained why he was offended, why the black people he described were offended, why anybody else should agree with their reasoning, or what significance the oldness of opposite-sex marriage has.

When opponents of same-sex marriage so often argue so poorly for their position, is it any wonder their position keeps dropping in popularity? Last year, I wrote a few posts about how to approach this issue in a more effective way: part 1, part 2, part 3.

A Jewish identity crisis

"Michael Medved Goes to Bat for Jews for Jesus - Sort Of."