Little dino: If you’re so confident, why not put the matter on the ballot in every State, so we can see what the people really think. No distorted or agendized polls, just voting.
I don’t think you will be squealing quite so loudly after that.
BTW, “innane” isn’t a word. Maybe you meant “inane”.

Robert108:

Another insult derived from a false premise. I apologized because I was wrong, and am honest enough to admit it. It is dishonest for you to assume otherwise, but then, you are obviously prejudiced.

Get backed into a corner, and starting to get pissy again, eh Robert?

There is no false premise that you ignored symbolic content from a posting of mine.

There is no false premise that had you not ignored the symbolic content, and made any reason connotative interpretation of it, that you would have misunderstood my original intent.

These are both factual statements, and lead to one simple logical conclusion.

All I’m saying about this, or I’m afraid I’m going to exceed the lifetime warranty for keyboard presses on this keyboard.

Hate Crimes Against Ex-Gays

Verbal to violent, attacks rise against former homosexuals

By Bob Unruh

Homosexual activist groups long have denied that ex-”gays” exist and have charged those ministries that work with the needs of those desiring to leave the lifestyle are fraudulent. One such activist even recently attributed the crime of rape to the “sickness” of the ex-”gay” movement.

But some attacks on those who have left the lifestyle, or are trying to, go far beyond verbal denigration, according to those who have experienced it, including Joe and Marion Allen. Their son Bart was in the process of leaving the homosexual lifestyle in 2001 when the “gay” with whom he’d shared an apartment strangled and killed him.

The Allens now run a ministry called Hope for the Broken Heart and they have spoken at conferences for the ex-”gay” ministry Exodus International simply because they cannot be silent about the tragedy in their family, and they want to help others avoid a similar result.

“He [Bart] was in the process of trying to come away from this, and was just involved with a sick, sick man,” Mrs. Allen told WND. “He was wanting help. He did not understand his feelings and we certainly did not understand his feelings.

“Thank goodness our child was a believer. He did love the Lord and he was miserable. He knew what the Scriptures said about it,” she said. The family looked for help from a counselor but found, instead, despair.

“When Bart came out of her office, he looked like he had been given a death sentence. I know this lady did not realize what she was doing … but she had told him he was born gay,” she said.

“She told him we were doing him an injustice by telling him this was wrong and he needed to go on back [to the homosexual lifestyle],” she said.

Her son did go back, but still couldn’t accept his own lifestyle choices any longer, and asked the other man to leave the apartment.

“He was trying to make a break and he wanted help. He [Bart] called him from our house, and told him [to move out],” she said. Her son asked the apartment building managers to change his locks, but they declined, assuring him the keys could not be duplicated.

“We don’t know [what happened]. The police told us Bart was asleep. He [the attacker] got in and strangled him to death with his hands and a dog leash,” Mrs. Allen said.

While violence rising to the level of homicide is not reported a great deal, the lower levels of harassment and badgering are growing, according those who have experienced or witnessed it.

Among recent situations that have developed in the ongoing argument over the ‘innateness” on homosexuality:

Officials at a New England organization have reported that members of a transgender lobby have promised to shadow grandmothers and others who will be collecting petition signatures on a traditional marriage amendment plan this summer.

Actions by members of the homosexual community recently prompted the American Psychiatric Association to cancel what was to be a discussion of the lifestyle.

And prominent leaders of the homosexual community have stated that only they benefit from hate crimes laws, those laws that enhance a penalty for crimes already covered by other statutes based on the thoughts that accompany the criminal act.

The Allens connected with the Exodus International Ministry and have been working through that, and their own project, to offer help to those who want guidance by sharing their own experiences.

“I guess you never get over things, of course, but it has been almost seven years. We still cry,” she said.

Regina Griggs, the executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, said her organization and staff members repeatedly have been attacked simply because of their message: that there are such individuals as former homosexuals.

(continued)

Zig… thank you. You are right, and I was wrong. I too am a student of history and I should have known better. Some goals are not worth the cost, and this is one of them.

More bad news for conservatives:

Dems: Opportunity as gay marriage acceptance grows

WASHINGTON — Gay marriage legalization in several states and the public’s growing acceptance of same-sex unions have Democrats sensing political opportunity and some Republicans re-evaluating their party’s hard-line opposition to an issue that long has rallied its base.

Another culture battle defeat for conservatism. They’ve lost them all.

My day is made!

That liberty is yours; they just want it as well.

A definition can’t have two meanings, you’re just wrong here.
This is a case of conflicting rights, which is typical of a free society. Issues are not black/white, which is why we have voting. If we decided everything on the basis of ideology, like you want to do, we end up with totalitarianism.
If we allow a tiny minority to define marriage for everyone else, we all lose, especially when, as I have already pointed out, homos have the liberty to form their own relationships, and through Durable Power of Attorney, all the powers normal people have, even though they can’t reproduce and don’t create a blending of family lines.
Should we change this age-old definition for tax deductions?

Human society determines what marriage is; it’s a social construct, and has tens of thousands of years of history behind it.

And human society is saying………change it.

…all people should enjoy the benefits of civil rights as extended by “marriage”.

Marriage is not a “civil right”. It has requirements, and is not available to all Americans, due to age requirements, degree of relatedness requirments, and health requirments. The meaning of marriage is contained in the “one man, one woman” requirement.

Dino2:

Post by Dino2 removed

Heh.

Thanks, SuitePotato.

The GOP has to look to the future.

I see many people in my generation who put Marxist or Socialist as their political affiliation on Facebook and MySpace. Should the GOP think about moving towards those philosophies in the future as a sound strategy?

I think it’s tiresome because you refuse to move an inch of ground in an argument, even when you’ve essentially admitted being in the wrong, which you then try to twist and contort into the other person’s fault.

An entirely false statement. In fact, when I did make a mistake about what you communicated, I readily admitted it and apologized. I’m not “trying to twist and contort” anything here, that is what you are doing. You used an emoticon to change the meaning of what you wrote in English, and I didn’t understand it, either as a valid communication or even as a form of communication, so you failed to get your point across. Instead of admitting your error, you repeatedly insulted me and tried to blame me for not regarding your emoticon as valid communication.
You obviously wish I did speak “emoticon”, but I don’t, so your communication didn’t get over.
Why you insist on trying to blame your failed communication on me is just weird.

Any study of the history of civilizations will reveal aggressive and open queer sex as a signal of a society in decline. No bigotry..just historical fact.

It’s anthropology but more than that, it’s the breakdown of the family unit which is the cohesion of any thriving culture. The GOP should never endorse queer marriage.

Wow.

Hoo-hoo-hoo. (low whistle)

Hann almost made it completely out of the closet on that last one.

By claiming that one case refutes my claim that by not participating in a certain lifetsyle reduces your odds of getting HIV/AIDS to near zero you are, in fact, claiming that the one case indicates a trend. I never said anything about a “trend”, Rob, so you’re being dishonest there. Ryan White is not the only case, he’s just the one I mentioned, but you cavalierly dismiss any facts that don’t support your predetermined position.

But whatever. You’re not interested in honest debate. Actually, I constantly offer reasoned arguments, while you continue to rely on insults and mischaracterizations. You claimed I said something about a “trend”, when I actually said: “As the case of Ryan White illustrates, that isn’t entirely accurate, Rob.” The word “trend” doesn’t appear, and I never said anything about a “trend”; I just said your statement wasn’t entirely accurate. You just made up the “trend” thing.

Another argument by you based on something I didn’t actually say, nor did I intend it. I say things right out, and if I didn’t say it, I didn’t mean it. No cutesy cartoons, either. /snicker

Kenny:

Except 100% of heterosexual couples don’t cheat.

Poor Kenny. So naive. You live in a world where we can cure cancer with sunshine and rainbows. I envy your ignorance!

Why do the Gay people need the republican party so much?

Gay people DON’T need the GOP, Luke—and neither does the rest of this great nation. America has seen the conservative movement for what it really is, and America has recoiled in horror.

Robert108:

You are certainly welcome to your own opinion; just don’t confuse it with everyone else’s.

My comment was directed to Gene, and I was referring to his opinion on something.

Some of you guys need a valium prescription.

I hope the ADD afflicted Left remembers this post the next time they accuse Republicans of all “marching in lock step”!

Which post?

r108

You keep making that unsupported claim, and you are still wrong, and still trying to use personal smear instead of any valid argument.

If I may, Rob’s argument is that whether gays marry or not is their business and not yours. The argument against gay marriage rests either on morality, which is not a conservative position as you have explained it to me, or on the question of harm posed to others, which would be consistent with a conservative position as you have explained it to me. You haven’t been arguing the harm angle though, you’ve been arguing the morality angle dressed up in “tyranny of the minority” clothing.

Arguing morality is a legitimate stance IMO but it’s not a “conservative” argument as you have explained conservatism to me.

Look at poof!!!

Actually getting a joke!!!!!!

There is a Gawd!

Explain how that makes me a victim or implies that I was claiming victimhood?

Your statement:

As I said sometimes communicating with you is hopeless.

This makes it all my fault, instead of your admitting your own mistake. Like I said, you pose as a victim.

However, what I am advocating is that we should not regulate behaviors that don’t harm the majority and further cause no harm to non-consenting parties.

A backwards perception. There were never any “regulations” about marriage until the homo activists decided to make it an issue by using the courts to force their definition on the rest of us, which made regulations necessary to protect the age-old definition.
It’s the aggression of the homo activists that is causing the trouble here.

All rights have a cost. Whose rights should be violated to pay that cost?

Carrick,

This again is an important issue for people who argue that being gay is a moral choice.

But the problem is, I don’t see it as a moral choice. I see it more in the light of a mental disease or disorder, such as those chemically-inclined to violence or criminality.

It is a well-known fact that those who attack children routinely re-offend and simply do not respond to treatment or threats of punishment. They suffer from a psychological compulsion.

The fact that the APA removed them from the catalog of mental disorders in 1973 is no proof that the psycho-pathology of homosexuality has not continued to be — in truth — a mental disease or disorder.

That change came not as a result of extensive scientific tests and studies — the APA was literally terrorized into declaring homosexuality a non-condition.

As a scientist you must know that that is not how valid science is determined. That harks back to threatening those who proposed that the Earth was not the center of the universe would be threatened with burning at the stake.

Homosexual activists would have us not examine how their new-found status of not being laboring under a mental disease or condition came about and focus solely that they have been magically declared sane.

I submit that the premise that they are sane was wrongfully compelled and they have always been and remain, mentally defective.

WillHuntForHunkyMan says:

If gay marriage is made legal then no court can stop anyone from marrying more than one person. The argument is that the government should have no say in who marries who, idiot.

And what does that have to do with marrying animals or horses as your lil buddy suggested?

Even if you limit your argument to half of that your fellow moron had made, you still have to remember you are talking about polygamy, and that is illegal, gay sex is not. So, once again lil guy, you missed it.

Let me know if you need further help decoding your native spoken language.

“Emoticons” are not a “spoken language”, native or otherwise.
I generally ignore them, which is my choice, I believe. I don’t consider them meaningful. I prefer English.

dd: The reality of the debate over changing the definition of marriage is illustrated by the popular vote whenever it is available, which is overwhelmingly in favor of keeping marriage what it has always been. The only reason there is any support for this deranged idea is that the Dems/MSM want to change our culture for their own partisan political purposes. Without the propaganda blitz, this issue is dead.
Again, I favor letting the people vote on the issue, and deciding it that way.
I favor the freedom to vote.

Where did I ever try and force anything on anybody?

Point it out to me, because I’m clueless as to what you’re even talking about.

If you don’t support the position of forcing so-called “gay marriage” on the vast majority who don’t want it, through the courts, I apologize.

Robert108:

Again, emoticons aren’t written language; they are symbols, and thus open to interpretation;

There really wasn’t much room for interpretation here.

The real problem was, as you admit, you disregarded the symbol–you didn’t use it at all in interpreting the original construction.

Had you misinterpreted the symbol (and had such a misinterpretation been something that one could reasonably expect a person to do), then you would have a point.

As things stand, you really don’t.

You referred to “the conservative worldview”, and I don’t share your opinion of what that is. You have a problem with disagreement?

Nice twist, it is actually secular conservatives trying to throw Christian Conservatives under the bus, not the other way around. Take the truth and make into a lie, lets see didn’t Lucifer do that to Eve?

I was responding to this “some of the supposed right wing have bought into this.”

Who’s throwing who under the bus here.

Find a quote where any of us “supposed ring wing” supporters of gay marriage ever tried throwing you under the bus Neiman, and I’ll concede you have a point.

Gene:

What grieves me even more is that some of the supposed right wing have bought into this. It demonstrates how weak we really are when we think we have to adopt some of the left’s agenda to satisfy them and maybe get a few into the tent. They aren’t coming. Broad brush centered conservatism does.

By all means throw us under the bus, then.

By some accounts I actually feed my cats, dogs and even neighborhood birds.

I understand that’s “out” in today’s conservative worldview.

Neiman:

Absolute nonsense, this is beneath you Garrick, you are far too intelligent and capable of good debate to lower yourself to such silly, vacuus, inane ranting!

If you don’t understand the context of the comment, stay out of the conversation.

Robert108:

Carrick: Back to consensus; if I ended my comment with a Chinese ideogram that changed the meaning of the comment, who is responsible if you don’t understand what I really meant?

That would depend on the audience.

For this country there is no excuse for ignoring wide spread conventions like emoticons, and you would have a point if I didn’t employ widely used symbols. (E.g., wrote this in Mandarin Chinese instead of English.)

Anyway, the point of the emoticon is in general not to just change the meaning (in the sense of author’s intent) but to clarify the authors intent.

There are authors who don’t like the “!” mark because it can be used to convey emotion (whew! gasp! choke! ouch!), and even used as a sentence terminator it still conveys emotion. Other symbols like “!?” and “!?” symbols or even “???” or “!!!” get used in our language this way.

In any case, I generally regard the speaker(or writer) as being the one responsible to get the message across as intended; if it doesn’t get across, the responsibility is on the one trying to communicate, IMO.

Both reader and writer have a responsibility here.

if you willfully neglect part of the author’s original communication, as you admit you did here, then the problem lies with you the reader.

Zig:

This creates the possibility of “ascertainment bias”. In other words, “twins deciding whether to participate in a study clearly related to homosexuality probably considered the sexual orientation of their co-twins before agreeing to participate” (Bailey et al., 2000, p. 533). This non-random sampling, of course, would result in biased data.

I agree that is true with this particular data set discussed by the author, it’s not a problem with Kendler’s data (2000) set though.

Sorry that you got confused that I was really trying to use that particular starting place to argue a position.

Neiman, written language by its very nature is ambiguous. That’s why we invented mathematics.

You can only glom on to true meaning if a large enough passage exists for you to be able to compare different passages of the author’s writing.

In the case of the sentence that provoked outbursts from you and Robert, there were two clues that you could have used (had you not read it hastily). The first it was clearly addressed to Gene. The second was the emoticon you ignored.

Even mathematical expressions, when we try to translate it back into English, leads to problems.

For example something called the “harmonic oscillator equation” was originally thought to lead to nonsensical physical results when applied to quantum field theory (such as negative probabilities). This turned out to be an interpretational problem (our written & spoken words used to describe the symbols were in error), and not a fundamental problem with the theory.

Robert108, there is broad consensus on the meaning of the tongue-in-cheek symbol. The fact that it was present, had an unambiguous meaning, and you choose to ignore it… well that’s your monkey. Quite obviously there is consensus on it, even if you choose to put your fingers in your ears and go “la-la-la-la” when you see one.

Emoticons are symbols of spoken language regardless of whether you choose to ignore them or not.

Originally appearing in the 19th century, they were broadly adopted in the 1980s by us internet users precisely to avoid this sort of long-drawn out argument because one party didn’t understand the emotional context in which the other person’s language was written.

Kenny,. I presented what I thought was a fairly balanced over view of the topic (meaning it wasn’t a “proof” of anything but a reasoned and balanced discussion of the topic), and you predictably ran off into the bleachers with your usual asshole behavior.

You are an asshole and deserve no respect. Go fuck yourself.

Robert108:

So, you’re the victim here? Too funny.

Explain how that makes me a victim or implies that I was claiming victimhood?

Or apologize as a man for that.

Again, I ignore them because they aren’t an effective means of communication, as I have said repeatedly

Oh what horse shit.

If they were ineffective people wouldn’t use them.

Mike Adamson:

:O

What possibly could you mean, Mike? /sarcasm

You’ve chosen to admitting to one, because there was no possible way for you to argue out of it.

Another insult derived from a false premise. I apologized because I was wrong, and am honest enough to admit it. It is dishonest for you to assume otherwise, but then, you are obviously prejudiced.

I think Robert108 would be on board with bringing back prohibition, anti-liberty as he is.

I’m not responsible for your prejudiced assumptions about me, Rob. As I have said countless times, let’s vote on it. That is liberty, not what you dishonestly said.
Can you ever make an argument on any of your extremist civil libertarian issues, or are you totally dependent on mischaracterizing those who disagree with you?

I said:

As I said sometimes communicating with you is hopeless.

You said:

This makes it all my fault, instead of your admitting your own mistake. Like I said, you pose as a victim.

LOL. Like I said, sometimes communicating with you is hopeless.

What was “my mistake” Robert108? The fact I used a common internet symbol to alert the reader that the statement was tongue in cheek?

As opposed to you admitting that you ignored it.

You admit you ignore part of my message and that is my fault, why?

Fill in the blank answer here

___________________________________

Robert108:

You referred to “the conservative worldview”, and I don’t share your opinion of what that is. You have a problem with disagreement?

You obviously have a problem with reading comprehension.

I said:

I understand that’s “out” in today’s conservative worldview.

Note the tongue-in-cheek symbol to alert the reader that the sentence was not meant to be taken literally.

Let me know if you need further help decoding your native spoken language.

LBH:

Any study of the history of civilizations will reveal aggressive and open queer sex as a signal of a society in decline. No bigotry..just historical fact.

What study of history is that?

How did homosexuality lead to the decline of the Roman Empire for example?

Seriously, what’s the model?

Robert108:

Two things: if that’s true, then why should the minority have the right to force its way of life on the majority?

Who’s arguing for the sake of arguing?! Obviously they don’t.

Simply because the minority wants to do something that is approved by the majority doesn’t mean they’re trying “to force its way of life on the majority”.

Furthermore, majority rule is not a philosophical concept, it’s a practical way to decide things in a large nation. Thought you knew that.

Well, duh.

Which is why I advocate deciding this through the electoral process.

However, what I am advocating is that we should not regulate behaviors that don’t harm the majority and further cause no harm to non-consenting parties.

Lion:

I didn’t call for censure, I called for ridicule.?

Go for it. It’s a free country.

I don’t agree with Zig on many things, but usually I can have respectful conversations with him.

Obviously there are people on the right who I regard as flaming assholes and for whom I mostly have /ignore mode set permanently on.

If DINO were to bring an intellectually honest argument to the table until recently I would have gone back and forth on that position with him.

Robert108:

You are certainly free to not care about the issue, but you have no right to force that idea on anyone else, especially by the tyranny of a small minority using the power of the State, to force their wishes on the rest of us.

Where did I ever try and force anything on anybody?

Point it out to me, because I’m clueless as to what you’re even talking about.

Lewis Black

Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year’s presidential election

You are perverted PP.–

Oh, Whistler is always a fan of Rob and rides the morality fence poorly

Man. I don’t even agree with Rob on this and I’m slammed. Pro traditional marriage hasn’t hurt the party. It’s very popular.

What I see is that we need to define what the Republicans are.

I see it as most but not all Republicans are pro traditional marriage.

But all Republicans must be small government–big freedom.

Therefore Specter had to leave. Not because he was pro abortion but because he was pro big government.

After we define what we are, we see to it that our elected leaders live with those principles.

Really we won’t have a lot of problems in national elections after we do this.

You wait and see.

Wait and see what Rob? Our Country turned into Sodom and Gomorrah so some homosexuals can try to pass themselves off as legitimate? I’ve had to watch my kids and their reaction to seeing two men in a public display of affection. The WTF is this look on their faces was bad. They ask me to explain this, which I would rather not do.

Gay marriage will not make the USA a better place, so why should the GOP support it? For votes? Isn’t there a quote about this?

“We Have Seen the Enemy and He Is Us”. -Martin Rowson

Rob, so what happened to the “Me Too Republicans” during FDR? Did it work out for them very well? I’m not going to cash in my beliefs and principles like Spector did because I want republicans to get elected.

I don’t think most Americans care about gay marriage all that much.

If people don’t care about gay marriage then why has pretty much every constitutional ban that has been voted on by the people passed? Sorry Rob, you’re wrong.

without a prayer of winning

No pun intended.

The real problem was, as you admit, you disregarded the symbol–you didn’t use it at all in interpreting the original construction.

You’re still not taking responsibility for your failure to get your intended message across. A cartoon face with a tongue sticking out of one corner isn’t “tongue in cheek”, since the tongue isn’t in the cheek, it’s out of the mouth.
If you want to be understood in future, you might send out a handbook of emoticon meanings, otherwise you will continue to fail to communicate effectively with them.
Again, I’m not obligated to learn your “language” of emoticons; there is no consensus between us on that subject, so it’s not an effective means of communication with those who don’t share your opinion of their meaning.

Like I said, scientifically speaking, it is more likely that people like Move_Zig prefer their perversion dark, dirty and secret.

That’s about as nonsensical a remark as I ever heard.

Not airing your secret laundry in public doesn’t mean you’re ashamed of it. People who feel the constant compulsion to run out into the streets screaming “I did anal with my loved one and it was GREAT!” are diseased. The vast majority of those who feel compelled to publically flaunt their sexuality are not even the majority of homosexuals.

It’s not a matter of finding sex “dirty”, it’s a matter of privacy and self respect. And, in the case of sex, it’s a matter of respecting the rights of your partner…hence the old expression “a gentleman never kisses and tells”.

Someone who runs around screaming “I’m gay. ACCEPT ME!” isn’t comfortable with their sexuality. They’re marginal losers who let their sexuality define them. It is who they are. And all that they are. And it’s neither healthy or normal.

moral beliefs of the rest of the non-homosexual population will have to be suppressed

Whooops, hold on. All non-homosexual population SAVE robert108. Cause he just said:

Another lie from you. I have said nothing of the kind. … I have never addressed this as a moral issue, so you just made that up.

Right robert108?

Sounds like what you are saying is that in order for the Republican party to gain “more popularity” we need to throw away our principles and go “with the flow…” and what’s popular?

I am going to have to say no as well. There is a reason there are two parties.

It should be clear by now that Homosexual Marriage is an oxymoron. Even when they can have so-called marriage, it doesn’t mean the same thing as it does in heterosexual terms insofar as fidelity is concerned, even if you are to cast all other value judgments aside.

For sake of brevity, it will conclude the Homosexual Promiscuity phase with the following links to additional articles and studies.

I can do this with every aspect of my previous criticism of homosexuality and warnings against it as a clear and present danger to greater society.

After this, I will pause so that others might comment and pose their own questions.

Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples

Are homosexual households, as the article suggests, simply another variant of human relationships that should be considered, along with marriage, as “part of mainstream American society”?

On the contrary, the evidence indicates that “committed” homosexual relationships are radically different from married couples in several key respects:
· relationship duration
· monogamy vs. promiscuity
· relationship commitment
· number of children being raised
· health risks
· rates of intimate partner violence

Fidelity, Promiscuity, and Gay Covenant Marriage

Few “gay” relationships last longer than two years, with many homosexual men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners. ….

50% of homosexual men over the age of 30, and 75% of homosexual men over the age of forty, experienced no relationships that lasted more than one year

Are ‘Gay’ Men More Promiscuous than Straights?

…A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20 percent of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300…
…
…The fact that many homosexuals appear to live their lives in sexual overdrive does not seem to concern leaders in the movement. In an editorial from the same issue (August 15) in which the survey results were published, The Advocate said: “[Homosexuals] have been proud leaders in the sexual revolution that started in the 1960s, and we have rejected attempts by conservatives to demonize that part of who we are.”

and

“Homosexuality is misrepresented as essentially the same experience as heterosexuality. Children are told that homosexuals typically make love ‘when they care about each other.’ While this may be true in some cases, it is not the norm. The most reliable studies about and by homosexuals
show that the typical homosexual is quite promiscuous. In fact, the largest study done of homosexual males (Homosexualities by Bell and Weinberg, 1978) finds that nearly half have 500 or more sex partners and that 28% have more than 1,000 partners. A recent American Medical
Association study shows that homosexual youths are 23 times as likely to have a sexually transmitted disease than heterosexual youths, and other recent studies show a higher incidence among homosexuals of hepatitis, gonorrhea, syphilis, and other sexually transmitted diseases.”…

“The contention that homosexual men are apt to have relatively large numbers of sexual partners is supported by several investigations. In one study, two-thirds of the homosexual male respondents were described aas having been engaged in “promiscuous sexual patterns” (

Because with states trending toward legalized gay marriage nationally (through votes of the people and/or their representatives and not the fiats of unelected judges) and younger generations caring less and less about the issue, if the GOP maintains the status quo on this issue the party is only going to be further marginalized.
The attempts to elevate Miss California to some sort of a cult hero because of her opposition to gay marriage is about the dumbest thing Republicans could be doing right now.

If the Republican party accepts gay marriage, they are dead as a party. Gay marriage hasn’t ever won a vote ANYWHERE (other than through courts or liberal legislatures) it’s been put on the ballot. The supra-majority of Americans are against it. This is such a clear cut issue that even Obama feels the need to say he’s in favor of one man, one woman.

Republicans keep losing ground by being liberal lite. Now you want them to be more liberal on the one issue that even Democrats tred softly on.

Foolish.

Eddie: Thanks Pparets. It’s possible to disagree with something morally, and still allow it in a free society still, isn’t it?

Neiman: Within limits!

Which leads us back to Rob’s test of whether the act causes any substantive harm to another person.

How does recognizing gay unions cause any substantive harm to any third party?

California already had civil unions that gave them all the legal benefits of marriage that the state had to offer. But that wasn’t good enough. Gays demand marriage. Tolerance is not good enough. Gays demand acceptance.

Robert108:

Carrick: You are aware that this is an open forum, aren’t you?

Yep.

And I make the assumption that if you as a reader see that I’m addressing a particular person, that those comments are in the context of the individual I’m addressing.

What does this emoticon mean to you, Robert108?

It’s called “tongue in cheek” for a reason.

Anybody who hates homosexuals must be good.

We don’t hate homosexuals. We pity you.

MARRIAGE DIGEST: New study: Homosexual men prone to promiscuity

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)–A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city’s homosexual male population.

According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago’s Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area’s homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found.

As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland — known as Chicago’s “gay center” — have at least one sexually transmitted disease, researchers said.

Clint, what is the “principle”?

Is the principle invasion of government into people’s private lives or is it staunch defense of individual freedoms that don’t impact on other people. Or a third, please feel free to fill in the blank ____________________________________

The Republican Party needs to decide whether it is pro nanny-state or pro individual freedom.

The two really are mutually exclusive.

PP,

Will you stop that?

Arguing, I can handle.

When you agree with me, I get all confused.

Ignoring and rebelling against God is not the answer. No matter how many self-proclaimed religious leaders and groups band together falsely in the name of peace by diluting God’s Word, God does not and will not bend to fit humanism. He loves us too much to let us completely destroy ourselves as we are doing wrongly in the name of peace.

God loves and died for everyone, including those who practice homosexuality. However, His Word is clear on His position regarding this matter (and others) which doesn’t change. “He changeth not.” I cannot imagine what God feels about those population control extremists in leadership who dare to misuse a group of people to propagate the acceptance and legal mandate of a behavior that does not reproduce as is hammered over and over in various publications including but not limited to the United Nations Millennium Developmental Goals, and the UK’s Population Control Report.

Love it Dawn!

Well said!

‘litmus test’ of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.”

Who cares? Without the Christian Right, how are you going to get elected? Ignore social-moral issues, no Christian Right!

Arguing morality is a legitimate stance IMO but it’s not a “conservative” argument as you have explained conservatism to me.

Not sure who explained Conservatism to you (I missed that part) but in adopting a deviant practice as the new norm, is in no shape, manner or form Conservative.

Conservativism, in its’ modern incarnation, focuses on the Constitution, individual rights and responsibilities, Middle American morality and Judeo-Christian values.

That Middle American morality and those Judeo-Christian values are 180 degrees from homosexuality.

More to the point, as homosexuals and their advocates have implemented their agenda, it has been imposed, not asked for. Far from peaceful coexistence or tolerance, homosexuals have proven to be the most intolerant little thought controllers in the modern American experience.

Their goal is the total abrogation of the Church and Christian values and I would imagine that holds true for Judaic beliefs as well. Should anyone dare to make the slightest protest, they will be treated to the vitriol and total punishing response the Referendum 8 supporters received, the lone, cross-holding Christian lady received, the embattled 12 year old U2tuber received and Miss California received.

You will not be allowed to continue in school, you will be fired from your job and if the Democrats have their way, you will be criminally prosecuted for any expression of dissent.

I would say, just those facts alone illustrate negative impact, not to mention the diseases and the costs that accompany those diseases.

And if you want to avoid making this a Conservative question and make it a Libertarian question, that is resolved by the central premise of Libertarianism, which is summed up by:

Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

Whether you look at the question from a Conservative or Libertarian perspective, the case has not been made for a massive and dramatic change to the Republican Party line.

If you want to do that, to borrow from Ricki Ricardo:

You gotta lotta ‘splainin’ to do.

I understand that, but not one of you have made a valid argument as to how gay marriage impacts your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Rob, I have, from the very beginning. You just ignored them.

To reiterate:

This is a zero-sum equation. The homosexuals and those who back them have made it so.

There is no choice involved in this cram-down. Whether Conservatives have objections to homosexuality or Christians have objections to homosexuality, those are to be steam-rolled and should anyone dare speak out against homosexuality, you will suffer retribution in school, at university, in the workplace, or like Miss California, the 12-year-old U2Tuber (the one whose mouth Dino fantasizes filling with semen) or any of the supporters of Proposition 8.

You remember at least those recent events in news history don’t you?

You recall how, in the most recent round of elections, 4 states reaffirmed that marriage was between a man and a woman, and yet, in states where such referenda have been passed, the Will of the People is reversed and homosexuality rammed down Society’s throat.

This is not freedom.

This is not how the Constitution was intended to function.

This is not how government was intended to function by the Founders.

This is usurpation by a virulent and diseased minority and the Court system, imposing its Will instead of exercising its limited judgment.

As you might have elicited from the links I have laid out immediately above, this is not a sane or safe minority, nor are its characteristics innate or immutable, aside from the immutability of a mental disease or deviancy.

Nor should government arrogate to itself the imposition of a practice which has proven again and again to present a clear and present danger and financial burden to the general public. Its’ task is to protect and serve — not Command and Endanger.

You fail, and indeed, refuse to see have this is the very contradiction of freedom — it is a power grab by government imposing a dangerous and costly practice onto the rest of society.

I am glad you call yourself a Libertarian, for you by taking this ludicrous and asinine position, are in no shape or form a Conservative.

That being the case, you have no moral authority in advising the GOP what it should do with its’ platform.

Your sad advocacy for this mental disease already has a political home — in the Democratic Party.

Henceforth I will consider you to be a Democrat.

With respect to Plato (and to ensure Snarky is not confused, that’s PLA-TO, not PLAY-DOE) :

In “What Plato Says” (letter, Feb. 13), Catherine Glass suggests that Phaedrus in the “Symposium” says what Plato thought. This gets Phaedrus and Plato wrong, for Phaedrus is praising pederasty, not homosexual intercourse in general, and Plato condemns homosexual intercourse in both the “Laws” and the “Republic.” The “Laws” (Book VIII) rejects homosexual intercourse because it can render men unfit for marriage and because it is contrary to nature and a shameless indulgence.

The “Laws” recommends that homosexuality, like adultery, fornication and the use of prostitutes, not be engaged in; that if it is engaged in, it be kept private or closeted, and that if it is discovered, it be punished by deprivation of civil rights, a severe penalty. In effect, the “Laws” recommends criminalization.

In the speeches of Phaedrus and others in the “Symposium” Plato portrays Athenian attitudes of the fifth century B.C. to pederasty, but those attitudes were not his own, nor those of Socrates. R. E. ALLEN Prof. of Classics, Northwestern U. Evanston, Ill., Feb. 14, 1993

I have not read that much Plato, except for certain law-related extracts. But I will agree with this take on Plato.

Otherwise, Snark, you still haven’t come up with anything against the PINK SWASTIKA.

You

FAIL

again

Does somebody know of any studies on modern gay practices?

E.g., what percentage have multiple partners as opposed to serial monogamous relations?

This seems to be Zig’s best argument to me. If that one doesn’t hold up, then the others almost certainly won’t either.

I’m not sure that it’s a good argument even if gays were the rabid progenitors of the HIV virus that Move Zig claims. Because the fact remains that HIV, for the most part, only impacts those who participate in a lifestyle that puts them at risk.

If you don’t engage in that lifestyle, your chances of contracting HIV drop to near zero.

If we were discussing, say, the government’s anti-HIV efforts Move Zig would no doubt agree with me. But since this is in the context of defending the liberty of gays, something tells me he’ll feel differently.

Okay, what will follow will be a test for Rob. I have previously invited him and anyone who was interested to click on the icon in my sig-line and thereafter explore the numerous links that examine various facets of the threat that homosexuality presents to society in general.

Since it is evident that he has not visited those links, I will be posting excerpts from several links which will examine this very topic.

The test will be of the following: Is Rob Port open to changing his position, based on the addition of more information to his current data-set, or will this prove to be an exercise in futility?

There is ignorance, which is the simple not knowing of a given fact. We are, all of us, ignorant of many, many things in life, and a useful life is one spent in pursuit of knowledge and the dispelling of ignorance.

Then there is willful ignorance, which is the intentional rejection of additional information, even if the source it objective and reliable.

Finally, there is outright stupidity, which is the complete inability to assimilate new data, from any and all sources.

After the presentation of the following links and excerpts, we will see which category Rob Port may fall under.

Robert108:

Wrong again! You have been thoroughly informed of the fact that I don’t speak “emoticon”, and am under no obligation to learn it.

I’ve been “thoroughly informed”? What kind of arrogant nonsense is that?

If you see somebody write a sentence and follow it by an emoticon, that is an attempt by that person to communicate something by definition.

If you choose to neglect part of that person’s communication, you have two choices: a) ignore the message, b) ask for a clarification. Ignoring that part of the communication isn’t an option, if your purpose is to understand author’s intent.

if your purpose is to misunderstand it, why even bother reading it before responding?

One more try,

It’s about the bricks and mortar of civil society. DeTouqeville commented on the moral and structured America he visited. Women and Men making a home. Creating civil structure to support the country.

Homosexual “marriage is not that.

IF you and your believers want to make homosexual contract legal in Iowa, go ahead. Call it Frapachino. I don’t care. It’s just not marriage. The issue is the false equivalency in calling it “marriage”.

If marriage can be compromised in definition then so can parenthood. If you have small children, a society that redefines marriage no matter how libertarian it seems to be, will ultimately redefine Family to make the state the premier parent. Parents rights go right out the window so that the Fuhrer becomes the nation’s parent. See Kim Jong Il, See Adolph Hitler. That’s exactly what they did. Yes, they bypassed homosexual marriage, but this fascist slope as slippery as it is will take you further to places you never imagined you would go.

Yes, and one more thing, They WOULD expect me to preform a Marriage Ceremony in my church. Count on it. That’s not what I am concerned about. It’s the idea that Homosex marriage and Heterosex marriage are equivalent. They are not.

Rob, I respect you, but on this one, you are way off the reservation. I’ll chalk it up to a momentary loss of focus.

Republicans have been found to be the most perverse sexual party of the two. They have been found to do the most perverted things to each other behind close doors, because they think sex is something to be ashamed of.

Likewise, they prefer their homosexual sex kept filthy, so they can enjoy it more.

Come out of the closets my friends.

I’m just looking at the reality of the debate in America. I don’t think most Americans care about gay marriage all that much.

Not sure why you are emphasizing this one subject for approval by popular demand. If you support this why not other issues as well. For example, why not abolish abortion since polls show that most Americans are opposed? Most people are opposed to the federal deficits but we still have them. If we’re going to go the route of popular consent, why not have all national questions be submitted to public referendums?

This is not how representative government is supposed to work. In my opinion, government by popular consent is little more than mob rule.

The Religious Rights money has been like Heroin to the Republican Party

We need to lose them or at least tell them no more of this bigoted social agenda of theirs…

If we don’t, Republicans will become extinct because We now look like the Party of David Duke instead of the party of Abe Lincoln

and who are they going to vote for anyway…Obama?

Remember, with sincere respect for Rob’s openness at SAB and especially fow allowing Reader Blogs, he is an atheist and by definition that means he does not hold to the traditional Judeo-Christian moral-spiritual values of most Americans, their actual conrary daily behavior notwithstanding. His position is pure expediency, having power is of greater value to him than having core moral values he might be willing to die defending.

Remember, Rob has often advocated that Christians should shut up and vote for a secular Conservative candidate, as he sees Christian family values as being detrimental to his desire for conservative power.

If the GOP abandons its opposition to falsely called gay marriage, it will lose its Christian Conservative base and be consigned to permanent loser status. Granted limited government, low taxes and adherence to the Constitution as originally written must be a cornerstone of the conservative movement; but if it loses its traditional Judeo-Christian values in pursuit of power, then the GOP deserves to die a quiet death, I will newver vote for a secular GOP candidate nor will most true Christians. Christianity will grow and even blossom under socialism, it always has, even when faced with the death of its members, but absent those values traditional conservatives will simply die off by giving in to those in power, because no one will be willing to die for limited government or low taxes.

What about dying for Liberty? Liberty is tied hand and foot to belief in Nature’s God as its only defender and when we allowed the state to establish hostility towards the Christian Faith and God, liberty began to die in America. Anyone seriously listening to Rob’s advice will join him in being a member of a dead GOP!

I understand that, but not one of you have made a valid argument as to how gay marriage impacts your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Not true. I have made many arguments against having marriage hijacked by a tiny minority pressure group using the courts to overturn the will of the people, but you never address them.
It isn’t necessary to make a negative argument, btw, because there is no affirmative argument on the table, Rob. I keep pointing this out, and you keep ignoring it.
No one has yet made anything resembling an argument as to why we should change something that the majority doesn’t want changed, and have no good reason to change.
I suspect there is no affirmative argument, as the homos would have made it already. Instead, they try character assassination and guilt tripping to force their agenda on us, and failing that, as they did recently in CA, they resort to violence and legal coercion.
Is this really what you call “freedom” and “liberty”, Rob?

but NEVER by the vote of the people.

That’s about to change.

Changing Views on Gay Marriage, Gun Control, Immigration and Legalizing Marijuana

ABC News-Washington Post Poll: 49 Percent Support Gay Marriage, New High.

Brent: How is having a tiny minority of terrorists dictate to the vast majority “freedom”? Please explain. The only reason real Americans have to legislate to keep marriage the way they want it is because of the attacks by activists. The homo activists are the ones endangering freedom.

26 states currently have bans on gay marriage in their state constitutions while seven other states have laws prohibiting it. Same sex marriage is legal or soon to be legal in 4 states and I have many friends and family members that live in Iowa that say that most Iowans want it to be up to a vote on a constitutional amendment.

I think that 30 is quite a bit bigger than 4.

It’s heartwarming to see “movement” gops abandoning “core principles” just to remain viable.

Immorality loves company.

Lewis Black is funny. Kenny must not have a sense of humor.

Move_Zig,

It just doesn’t matter. Even if 100% of all homosexuals were lefty socialists (and that’s not true, of course), it still is not right to become an authoritarian thug (like a socialist) to deal with that problem. If you act like socialists do (on other issues), you lose the high ground and are rightly called a hypocrite.

Oppose all forms socialism and never resort to any as a punishment against socialists, even if it is tempting to do so.

So you believe gay marriage must be outlawed because of “homo activists”….

Again, no. I don’t think what homos do is “marriage”, so it can’t be “outlawed”, because it doesn’t exist. You’re playing the Orwellian game of redefinition, where something that only exists thorough legal coercion is now said to be “outlawed” by people who simply want to keep marriage what it has always been.
Nice bullshit, but I’m onto that trick.

It’s the homo activists who are trying to hijack real marriage for their own selfish minority agenda. Resisting that is simply the right of self-defense.

I’m not about to read 97 comments, but what is this crap about “all rights have a cost”? Me having the right to life and my property doesn’t cost you anything. These — so-called negative rights — are the only rights you have.

Only if you are talking about positive rights (e.g., the “right” to health care) do rights have a cost. But you shouldn’t be talking about positive rights unless you are a punk thieving socialist.

I have a question, I’m not sure if it has been answered before, it doesn’t seem to have been addressed in this particular thread so far. Why do the Gay people need the republican party so much?
All this back and forth leads me to think there is some thing they have that Gay folk feel pretty strongly they just can’t do without.
Anyway I’d be real interested to to know if anyone could tell me what it is.

Carrick,

Of course I will read and consider it.

There have even been cases in the past where a new and verifiable dataset has completely changed my understanding of a given fact or set of circumstances.

For instance, prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, I was certain that the Cold War would either turn hot as a result of a tripwire event, or that the stalemate would continue ad infinitum

It did neither.

Much to my surprise, it collapsed under the weight of Socialisms’ own internal contradictions. While I had always know that the USSR had been on a constant war footing, I did not know that it would have collapsed as it did.

Secondly, I had always been certain that the NAZI’s despised homosexuals. Certainly, within the ranks of the military.

But with the advent of the research revealed in the Pink Swastika, it was made clear that the military and the political structure of the Third Reich were separate and distinct, and that the political apparatus of the Nazi regime was infused, top to bottom, with homosexuals.

Their capacity for inhumanity and sheer evil was made clear by that. But it was a shock to me.

Again, however, I am familiar with how — like every other part of Leftist advocacy — homosexuals will cook up manufactured studies, quotes and facts, while at the same time trying to discredit the truth.

That is the Left’s MO. They have been caught lying time and time again — in matters related to Domestic Violence, Gun Violence, Global Warming and just about every other political effort they get involved in. As Chief RZ’s famous sigline puts it so succinctly LEFTISTS LIE – IT’S ALL THEY HAVE

That being said, I will read what you have to offer.

Some attacks have been physical, such as the 2007 incident at the Arlington County Fair.

There, police told WND, there was a confrontation between an individual who got upset over the PFOX message about leaving homosexuality and a volunteer at the fair booth.

“One officer told me today he was on patrol at the fair when a woman approached him and told him a man had knocked over pamphlets at the PFOX booth and assaulted another man there. The officer then spoke to the alleged victim. He did not want to press charges and therefore no written report was filed,” said a statement issued by John Lisle, media relations officer for the Arlington County police department.

“Based on the description the officer was given, he located the suspect at the fair. Another officer escorted that gentleman off the fair grounds,” his statement continued.

The result of the situation? Pro-homosexual activists vigorously condemned Griggs for “making up” the story when she alerted supporters about the situation.

“Regina Griggs has lost all credibility and must resign in shame for her dishonest behavior,” wrote Wayne Besen, executive director of the homosexual advocacy group Truth Wins Out. “What PFOX did was warped, twisted and an insult (sic) real hate crime victims.”

Griggs said at the time, “The gays became infuriated when our ex-gay volunteers testified about leaving homosexuality. … One gay man went so far as to hit our ex-gay volunteer because he refused to recant his ex-gay testimony.”

NO.

Rob, gay marriage, like global warming (now climate change) is a centerpiece of the liberal socialist agenda being forced upon on us in a soft tyranny. We are constantly bombarded with PC’ness and told we must accept these changes, often “for our own good”.

I just finished reading Mark Levin’s excellent book, Liberty And Tyranny, A Conservative Manifesto. I strongly recommend it. Levin discusses at length how statists seek to control our lives by incrementally changing our society so that people accept things that would have once repulsed them. We DO NOT have to accept this.

Whenever this issue is put to a vote by the population it is rejected. Activists seek out sympathetic courts with activist judges that legislate from the bench and make decisions that the people would not make. This is tyranny of the most insidious kind, for it is a tyranny in which the tyrant says he is forcing this upon you for your own good. I don’t want my society changed to re-define marriage and gender roles to benefit a small population of homosexuals.

INFIDELITY, PROMISCUITY AND INSECURITY WITHIN HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS

* One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners.55 Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners.56

* Lesbians are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners.57 A substantial percentage of them were strangers.

* The statistics speak for themselves: If homosexuals of either gender are finding satisfaction, why the search for sex with a disproportionately high number of strangers? In view of the evidence, homosexuals will not succeed at establishing exclusive relationships. Promiscuity is a hard habit for anyone to break, straight or homosexual. Promiscuous heterosexuals often fail to learn fidelity; male homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexual males, and therefore far more likely to fail. Lesbians are more promiscuous than heterosexual women. There is little good data on the stability of lesbian relationships, but it is reasonable to speculate that their higher rates of promiscuity and various deep-seated psychological problems would predispose them to long-term relational instability. Existing evidence supports this speculation.58

* The more radical homosexual activists flaunt their promiscuity, using it as a weapon against what they call “bourgeois respectability.”59 But even more conservative advocates of gay marriage such as New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan admit that for them, “fidelity” does not mean complete monogamy, but just somewhat restrained promiscuity.60 In other words, they admit that exclusiveness will not happen. And without exclusiveness, their “marriages” will have little meaning.

If a black man is gay do you hate him twice as much?

If he lives in CA, then the homo terrorists hate him. Nice.

Robert108:

. You used an emoticon to change the meaning of what you wrote in English, and I didn’t understand it, either as a valid communication or even as a form of communication, so you failed to get your point across.

I didn’t change meaning, I clarified meaning with use of a standard symbol used in this venue of communication.

You not only didn’t understand it, you purposely ignored it. Something you repeatedly admit to doing, even though symbols such as tongue-in-cheek have been used to facilitate communication on this type of venue since the 1980s.

Ignorant people will do almost anything, which hardly justifies using Emoticons at all. You have lost this argument!

Uh yeah. Because your brain fell out into the toilet.

No Neiman, the gop would not be comprising core moral-spiritual principles, it will simply be inviting the extremists who hijacked the gop to ride a different bus.

Why don’t you just call them what they are, the Religious Right. You are trying to have it both ways, idiot.

When some hyperventilating twit tries to characterize the Republican party as any one thing, they typically get it wrong.
Say, do you use your $800 belt to hold up your soggy, yellow swim trunks, too?

and who are they going to vote for anyway…Obama?

No. They will stay home and vote for no one. Or write in a candidate without a prayer of winning. And then we get people like Obama elected by default.
Just as there were those who could not bring themselves to vote for McCain on principle, many in the so called “Religious Right” will not vote for the “lesser of two evils” on principle.

I would comment on this thread,

…says the ADD afflicted troll who already has commented on this thread! Sheesh! Loosen your $800 belt! It’s squeezing your brains again!

trying to use the courts to force their definition of marriage on the rest of us?

How is that different than what you are trying to do?

our liberty to continue to define marriage

That liberty is yours; they just want it as well.

Why is the “freedom” of this tiny minority more important than the freedom of the vast majority?

It is not more important; it is AS important. Much like you, all people should have the right to determine what marriage is. You can continue to define it.

Human society determines what marriage is

From a legal standpoint, that is false.

Marriage is a sacrament of the Church,

Not true of all Churches. For example, as a Lutheran, Marriage is NOT a Sacrament; that is reserved for Baptism and Holy Communion.

So, now a person not only has to be straight but Catholic too?

Use the term marriage and you are highjacking a sacrament of the Church.

Don’t use marriage then, use Union.

But, that is obfuscation,

Except it’s not. It’s an exact parallel. So, why don’t you demand that only a man and a woman who have been BAPTIZED can be married? Or only a man and a woman who are believers can be married?

There is a big difference between ceremonial-religious laws and moral laws!

Your point is that marriage ought not be afforded to some people based on religious views. I think that before you do that, you should legislate the DIRECT COMMANDMENTS OF GOD.

some of the supposed right wing have bought into this.

You mean that crazy of idea of less government and more individual liberty. I know. Out there, sheesh.

I don’t care what they do, I’m not going to endorse it, codify it, make it acceptable to the grand and great grand kids if I can help it..

SO, NOPE..

That slope is far too slippery.

Nobody tries to categorize them as one thing. 95% of your party had no principles, and voted for McCain.

What “principles” did those who voted for Obama follow?

BOB, that’s not splintering you smell, that’s the smell of aberrant branches being pruned off and piled up to be disposed of in the brushpile of bad ideas.

Something the abomination that the Liberal tree doesn’t do very well.

Once in a while one of our better looking scions goes off in a bad direction. The old shears has to come out and nip that sucker in the bud right now.

Rob got a little too much miracle grow. Snip Snip.

Ah, that’s better

They don’t have to.

Exactly. Since Rob has always failed to make an affirmative argument for having tiny minority of homo activists hijack the definition of marriage, no negative argument is necessary. Rob has not proved anything, so nothing needs to be said. He is simply making unsupported claims.
Even the AGW morons make an affirmative argument for their position; it’s wrong and full of holes, but at least they make one. As far as I know, there is no affirmative argument for the homo marriage position; all they do is insult and guilt trip, along with some actual terrorism against the will of the people in CA.
Why would any intelligent person support that kind of crap?

Hannitized says…

Republicans have been found to be the most perverse sexual party of the two.

By whom? And when did the GOP or the Dems become ‘sexual’ parties?

The shallowness of your thinking is appalling.

Carrick,

Move_Zig is the most hateful person here?

Do you really think you can turn him around?

And BTW, it isn’t just homosexuals.

He posts links about how blacks are more predisposed to crime.

Move_Zig should be shunned and ridiculed. Anything else gives is viewpoints credence.

But for some reason the conservatives here embrace him.

Nobody tries to categorize them as one thing. 95% of your party had no principles, and voted for McCain.

Right again!

You are the . . . that said the Religious Right would not. You identified them, but tried to hide it by calling them “so called”, which was completely . . .

Right again!

Poor Kenny. So naive. You live in a world where we can cure cancer with sunshine and rainbows. I envy your ignorance!

I can show you couples who don’t cheat. If there is a single couple who doesn’t cheat, your theory is nill. And in the lack of evidence, we must assume no cheating existed. You are full of it.

Thanks for proving to me again that you are an ass, and that there’s no real point in conversing with you.

I wish to address this in more detail.

By YOUR evidence, two of the three studies you posted are USELESS.

In Pillard and Bailey, the “gay gene” showed itself in 1/2 of the cases (48% in women, 52% in men…I’m assuming equal showings in both sexes). This means that the “gay gene” didn’t exert itself in 50% of cases where raisings were identical.

That both Pillard and Bailey were were extremely gay biased raises the question of objectivity. ALL studies (without a single exception…[caveat] to my knowledge) that prove homosexuality is genetic have been biased towards the “yes” position, and have not been duplicated.

Prove me wrong or shut up Carrick.

If marriage means whatever less than 1% of society wants it to mean for them alone, regardless of the significant and vital role marriage holds in society, nothing is sacred.

I just don’t want the state putting it’s official stamp on the transaction.

My stand comes because I don’t want to pay for it.

Take it out, then what? Christian conservatives stay home! What have you won that way?

What do we define the Republican party around.

My suggestion would be 1) Strong national defense. 2) Respect for the rule of law and the Constituion. 3) Small Government. 4) Federalism.

Gay marriage comes about in the fourth. If the voters of a state decide to allow gays to marry then they may. They don’t get to force their feelings on the rest of us.

Again, the point of that post wasn’t to assemble an argument but to present an overview. And it wasn’t USELESS except to close-minded assholes, namely you.

Your evidence says you’re wrong. I used no other criteria. How does that make me closeminded, you halfwit?

It presented data that pointed towards a particular conclusion. All data have their limits, and I thought the article was worth pointing to because it did a better job than most that I’ve seen of fairly discussing those.

It was biased. And even biased it presented a 50/50 split. It was statistically useless. Even the article you presented had problems with the study.

Your mommy must be proud.

Your mommy must not.

You posted and article that said “this study was posted but contested”, then you get pissed off that us non-scientific pissnats have the gall to post stuff from your study.

You’re not much of a scientist.

I didn’t call you an ass for that. I called you an ass because you are obviously one of those people that seen on a distant hill, one could say “hey look, there’s an ass!”

No you always call me an ass when I point out that your own evidence contradicts you. Whne pointed out that it contradicts you, you bitch that it’s an “overview”. Whatever, Carrick. You just think you’re the shit, and get angry whenever anyone realizes they have a pair of balls and challenge you.

Lioncourt, Zig is both entitled to his position, and entitled to have his opinion heard. I for one will continue to read his comments, even when I disagree with them.

Please stop destroying real conservatives in the eyes of the general populace with your self destructive tendencies.

Try winning without us! It isn’t going to happen! So, abandon the Christian Values Voters and it is you and old atheist Rob that are killing the GOP. We lost in the last two election cycles because the GOP left most Conservatives out and ran like big spending, no core values Democrats. No true Christian will vote for anyone supporting abortion or homosexual marriage, so how many conservatives will that leave you? Enough to fill a Ramada Lobby?

Read some of the other comments before commenting under such a large thread, you missed the fact that conservatives by and large do not agree with you and Rob. Oh, Whistler is always a fan of Rob and rides the morality fence poorly; but otherwise, I think you are making a big mistake and condemning the GOP to obscurity by yours and Rob’s attacks on Conservative Christians. Get rid of values Christian Conservatives and I am willing to bet that the Democrats hold the White House and Congress for at least a century and with fillbuster proof majorities. If they ever get back in power they will be Democrat Light!

Carrick,

Your ass comment aside, causation has been attributed to psychological factors, as sexuality in youth can be malleable, indeed, as the studies showed:

They found, “Gender nonconforming behavior in childhood was associated with maternal, paternal, and peer rejection” among these gay and bisexual men (p. 124). Another recent study, though methodologically weak, found that among a sample of Catholic seminarians, those admitting a homosexual orientation also reported “more emotional distance from their fathers than heterosexual seminarians” (Seutter & Rovers, 2004, p. 46).

Moreover, a criticism of what appears to be the very study you cited was this:

However, the samples of twins included in these studies were largely recruited through advertising in gay or lesbian publications. This creates the possibility of “ascertainment bias”. In other words, “twins deciding whether to participate in a study clearly related to homosexuality probably considered the sexual orientation of their co-twins before agreeing to participate” (Bailey et al., 2000, p. 533). This non-random sampling, of course, would result in biased data.

– Causes of Homosexuality: A Christian Appraisal of the Data

Unless those principles get in the way of you imposing your morality on other people.

You keep making that unsupported claim, and you are still wrong, and still trying to use personal smear instead of any valid argument. Sigh.
Are you claiming the Republican Party isn’t a big tent party? Your untrue personal attack didn’t really address anything I said. It was just gratuitous bitchery.

I’ve yet to see a convincing argument made.

Have to agree with MZ on this one. If millenia of tradition, religion, definition, and civilization don’t at least give pause to changing what marriage is, then willful ignorance is an appropriate conclusion.

Carrick,
Your ass comment aside, causation has been attributed to psychological factors, as sexuality in youth can be malleable, indeed, as the studies showed:

Thank you, Zig. It rather pissed me off that I was called an ass for pointing out that his own citation said it was worthless.

Lewis Black

HOW DARE THOSE FUCKING CONSERVATIVES! HOW DARE THEY DENY US!

Well, yea we brought it up first. But…HOW DARE THEY RESPOND!

A “paradigm shift” is the choice of wool that the Purpose-Driven, emerging church, and new spirituality movements have been trying to pull over the eyes of Christians in “redefining” Christianity. Basically, it’s a movement of self proclaimed “Christian” and other leaders to merge all religions in the name of pseudo-peace. For manmade religions, it would be fine except people must be willing to come to terms that those leading the movement (such as Tony Blair) are basically saying that all religions are equal and true, therefore saying that all are equally false because no matter how much religious leaders schmooze each other, there are great differences in their tenets.

To respond to Rob’s post and other similar posts, just ignore that God created marriage between man and woman and we can woo independents over to a redefined “attractive” Republican thinking? I wouldn’t vote for a Republican or Democrat with such flimsy convictions.

Ignoring and rebelling against God is not the answer. No matter how many self-proclaimed religious leaders and groups band together falsely in the name of peace by diluting God’s Word, God does not and will not bend to fit humanism. He loves us too much to let us completely destroy ourselves as we are doing wrongly in the name of peace.

God loves and died for everyone, including those who practice homosexuality. However, His Word is clear on His position regarding this matter (and others) which doesn’t change. “He changeth not.” I cannot imagine what God feels about those population control extremists in leadership who dare to misuse a group of people to propagate the acceptance and legal mandate of a behavior that does not reproduce as is hammered over and over in various publications including but not limited to the United Nations Millennium Developmental Goals, and the UK’s Population Control Report.

May we value freedom from consequences more than the liberty to destroy ourselves.

It’s a loser issue. And if you were all principled conservatives, you would embrace freedom. I stand on principle. I don’t know what your excuse is.

1. We are the only ones standing on principle on this matter, we would rather the GOP lose than to ever compromise our deeply held beliefs on this issue. If that is not standing on principle. what is?

2. Freedom is NEVER absolute! The most advanced society must impose some restrictions on liberty for the common good, like free speech, you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. Since homosexuality, IMO, poses a much greater risk than yelling fire in a crowded theater, as it threatens society and our children, the least we can do is not grant them the right to destroy the traditional family.

3. Homosexuality poses a real danger to the family: “We must all become soberly aware of a deeply disturbing reality: The homosexual agenda is not marriage for gays. It is marriage for no one. And despite what you read or see in the media, it is definitely not monogamous.

What will happen sociologically if marriage becomes anything or everything or nothing? The short answer is that the State will lose its compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriage has been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver’s license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.

So, it is a threat to traditional marriage. It is a threat to children: “The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. Because homosexuals are rarely monogamous, often having as many as three hundred or more partners in a lifetime — some studies say it is typically more than one thousand — children in those polyamorous situations are caught in a perpetual coming and going. It is devastating to kids, who by their nature are enormously conservative creatures. They like things to stay just the way they are, and they hate change. Some have been known to eat the same brand of peanut butter throughout childhood.

More than ten thousand studies have concluded that kids do best when they are raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers. They are less likely to be on illegal drugs, less likely to be retained in a grade, less likely to drop out of school, less likely to commit suicide, less likely to be in poverty, less likely to become juvenile delinquents, and for the girls, less likely to become teen mothers. They are healthier both emotionally and physically, even thirty years later, than those not so blessed by traditional parents.

Last about your comments reference Rome and Greece and the use of the Bible as an historical book. As pointed out there are other books which wholly refute your revisionist historical claims on this issue. Homosexuality is a symptom of the complete moral decay of any nation and it is the last sign just before their fall into the ashheaps of history. You are simply wrong on that issue.

As to the New Testament, most of the Epistles were written by Paul, a Roman citizen by birth. It was available to people fully aware of the Roman world and any serious errors would have been loudly refuted. It is as accurate a record of the history of that time as any letter written by any other highly educated person.

Rob’s right perhaps about gay marriage not being a party plank.

However he’s dead wrong saying that it’s an issue that isn’t important to the majority of Americans. The ban on gay marriage has passed in every instance it’s been brought to a popular vote except for one.

However the Republicans in Washington ought to keep the federal government from nullifying the votes of the people no matter which they’ve they’ve chosen.

Move_Zig, if I were to post the links, would you accept it, or ignore it?

I ask this because I know the studies proving the link, but there is some effort on my part to assemble them. This isn’t an area I’ve worked on personally, though I was a referee on one of the papers.

Here’s a quick and dirty version ( there is A LOT more evidence than this, just a few examples were given here):

The question remains of whether homosexuality is a choice or is it genetic. Many people argue that it is not a choice. Nobody would choose a life that is difficult and faces ridicule and discrimination. We do not know the cause of homosexuality, but scientists are starting to reveal some very interesting research that may proved that being gay can be genetically determined, or an individual my be genetically predisposed to be gay. It has been shown that among families, family members who are gay is very high. Over 60% of identical twins, if one is homosexual, the other is too. Non-identical twins, 22% are gay.

Several genetic studies have been done that appears to genetically link homosexuality. Pillard and Bailey did a study on twins and homosexuals. They compared the percentage of male siblings who were both gay with the amount of genetic material they shared in order to find evidence for a genetic link of homosexuality. Among twin pairs where one twin was gay, they found that 52% of the identical twins were both gay, 22% of the fraternal twins were both gay, 9% of the non-twin brothers were both gay, and 11% of the adopted, or genetically unrelated brothers were both gay. They concluded that because the identical twins have a higher percentage rate than other siblings, the idea that sexual orientation is genetically influenced is consistent. Some experts questioned Bailey and Pillars findings. They both agreed they had difficulty finding a random and unbiased sample of homosexual population. They also were not able to categorize bisexuality as being either homosexual or heterosexual, and did not allow for it to be its own trait. Because of this, experts felt this study could not determine homosexuality as genetic.

Another study done by Simon LeVay focused on the size of INAH3 nucleus of the hypothalamus. He wanted to test whether the areas INAH-2 and INAH3 in the nucleus were different in size not by sex, but by sexual orientation. By proving a difference in size, he could establish that the brains of gay men were similar to that of women’s brains. He only found that INAH-2 exhibited difference in sexual orientation. It was two times larger in heterosexual men as homosexual men, and he concluded it was different because of sexual orientation, not because of a difference in sex.

Dean Hamer, a molecular geneticist also did a study which tried to identify genetic markers which could influence a person’s sexual orientation. Hamer recruited male siblings who were both gay and created a family tree chart tracing the incidence of homosexuality among family members. He identified the X chromosome as the site for the genes that code for homosexuality. He analyzed the DNA of each pair of brothers and also analyzed the DNA of mothers, when it was available. Hamer thought that if the mother’s DNA showed two sets of markets, one on each chromosome, and each of their homosexual sons shared the same kind of marker, than the sibling pair was deemed concordant-by-descent, which would allow Hamer to declare a genetic link to homosexuality. The biggest critique of this was that Hamer never actually found the homosexual gene.

In conclusion, a large amount of evidence is leading us to the genetic link towards homosexuality, but not entirely a conclusive one.

There is no one “gay gene”, IMO. I think there are genetic traits that predispose certain people to engage in homosexual behavior with the right environmental triggers.

I think homosexuality is far more complex than that.

Rob, his SAB site a real credit to him, has stained my opinion of him with this thread.

It’s a shock.

You ARE anti-freedom. You told me I can’t choose to opt out of social security because I may be irresponsible with my money.

I simply stated what the govt told me when I tried to opt out some years ago. I never said anything about you being “irresponsible with your money”. You just made that up.
You should quit while you’re not too far behind, Kenny.

Health Effects of Homosexual Lifestyle

A review of the history of homosexuality and AIDS, indicates the original spread of AIDS is generally attributed to the aforementioned promiscuity of homosexual men. Originally the syndrome was called the “gay disease” because the overwhelming majority of patients were homosexual men.[113]

In June of 2004, the journal Nursing Clinics of North America reported that homosexual men and men who have sex with men “are nine times more likely to become infected with HIV than their heterosexual counterparts”.[114] Of newly diagnosed HIV infections in the United States during the year 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that about 63% were among men who were infected through sexual contact with other men.[115] As of 1998, fifty-four percent of all AIDS cases in the United States were homosexual men, and the CDC stated that nearly ninety percent of these men acquired HIV through sexual activity with other men.[116]

In relation to HIV infections in the developed world, in 2007 the German medical journal Bundesgesundheitsblatt – Gesundheitsforschung – Gesundheitsschutz published an article entitled Prevention strategies to control the HIV epidemic. Successes, problems, and perspectives. The abstract for that German medical journal stated the following: “…for several years now, in the western developed countries sexual risk behaviour, newly diagnosed HIV infections, and the incidence of various other sexually transmitted infections seem to re-increase, especially among men who have sex with men (MSM).”[117] In 2007, the medical journal Sexually Transmitted Diseases reported the following: “In Western Europe, HIV prevalence among community surveys of MSM [men who have sex with men] conducted between 2000 and 2004 ranged from 5% to 18%.[118]

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from 1994 to 1997 the proportion of homosexual men stating they had anal sex increased from 57.6 percent to 61.2 percent.[119] Although homosexual men may practice various sexual practices which may put them at risk, studies report that anal sex may be an important risk factor for the relay of many diseases

…

In 2004, the prominent medical website, WebMD, stated the following: “Men who have sex with men and women are a “significant bridge for HIV to women,” the CDC’s new data suggest.

…

MRSA

we show that multidrug-resistant USA300 has emerged as an important source of disease among men who have sex with men in 2 geographically distinct communities. The high proportion of infection involving the buttocks, genitals, and perineum suggests that community-associated MRSA may be transmitted in the setting of sexual contact among men who have sex with men.

You are an asshole and deserve no respect. Go fuck yourself.

Oh my! Time to block another one! LOL

Pparets: You have a right to stand with Rob, remember though it will be in a GOP permanently out of power, cannot win while trashing Conservative Christians and expecting them to vote for secular candidates.

Your other nonsense about Christians is a denial of history, this nation until 1962 has always been a Christian nation, not officially; but the as John Jay said, I believe it was him, our Constitution was designed to rule a religious people, it cannot rule any other, which is why the Democrats have established a federal hostility towards Christianity.

To the comments about the frustrated Republicans engaging in sexual and other indiscretions: What does that, if true, have to do with whether what they and others do is right or wrong? If a thing is evil, it is evil, even if everyone does it!

What’s all this talk?

Sounds like what you are saying is that in order for the Republican party to gain “more popularity” we need to throw away our principles and go “with the flow…” and what’s popular? It’s what Obama and his administration seem to be doing…so are you saying if you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em???

This type of thought is what happens when one smokes a bone…

If we were to continue this conversation then let’s say…

We should say make hetrosexuals a minority and ban marriage between a man and a woman. While we are at it, let’s ban GOD, the bible and any teachings, in fact let’s make Church Mass an unlawful gathering, after all who needs that “Faith” stuff – it just says that Gay Marriage is a sin and we’ve proved that it really isn’t and is actually used for procreation, wait we haven’t done that yet … never mind, minor detail we can ignore.

Oh, and let’s give everyone in the world a bottle of Coca-Cola as that’s all it will take to bring the whole world together and get everyone over the cultural, political and socio-economic differences between people.

Let’s legalize Cannabis, cocaine and heroin, it’ll be a good revenue generator for the massive government, well until people start to die off on overdoses, again minor detail that we can ignore.

We should also free all incarcerated pedophiles, after all they are a minority group that have been oppressed and victimized by the (Right Wing)fascist Police authorities and deserve a second (or third, or fourth, fifth…minor detail we can ignore…) chance.

We should scrap all vehicles that use the yukky environmentally unfriendly combustion engine and use bicycles to travel cross country (We will all have the time, as no-one will have a job, we will all be “employed” by the government…”).

Healthcare should be nationalized, after all the government can run medical facilities much better than doctors as they are far better at things such as billing, insurance requirements documentation and the other such bureaucratic functions. What about the elderly, inform and those with serious chronic diseases that need medical help, well they will all die off waiting for procedures in line, minor detail that we can ignore…), they can wait in line…”Next”…

Once everyone has a bottle of Coca-Cola, there will be no wars, so why need that expensive Missile Defense system, dismantle it and used the hollowed out missiles to grow “Cannabis plants”, much more eco-friendly.

Sorry, that’ why they are called principles.
You either abide by them or don’t…a choice.

So you are saying that the rights of heterosexuals step on the rights of homosexuals who are not allowed to marry and enjoy those same benefits?

Homosexuals shouldn’t be able to do that either. However, since civil rights have muddied the waters of what actually is a right and a societal contract.

The Satanists didn’t like Catholics, but rather to impose their views on all Christian churches and all other established institutions, they made their own. If the gay community made their own institutions, they would not meet with that much resistance.

The many do not have the right to enforce their way of life on the few.

Two things: if that’s true, then why should the minority have the right to force its way of life on the majority?
Furthermore, majority rule is not a philosophical concept, it’s a practical way to decide things in a large nation. Thought you knew that.

Sounds like you’re arguing for the sake of argument now, C.

Furthermore, Kenny, I was refuting Rob’s continuing mischaracterization of me as being “anti-freedom” or words to that effect. In this case, I support the freedom of the people to vote on this issue, which is their right. You fail to recognize that it is the homo activists who are trying to use the power of the courts to overturn the will of the people on this issue.

You ARE anti-freedom. You told me I can’t choose to opt out of social security because I may be irresponsible with my money. Which, even if true, is none of your damn business. You oppose public smoking because it offends delicate sensibilities of yours, and therefore it’s ok to tell businesses THEY can’t make a choice to allow it…because you don’t like it. And on this thread, you are ok with making alcohol criminal as long as it’s voted on. All of this is consistant with the picture Rob paints of you as anti-freedom.

And what is this stupid pap about “I don’t realize gays bah bah bah”. On at least three occasions in this very thread (one in response to Dino), I have said marriage isn’t a right, as it is societal recognition of a union. And I called Dino’s tactics “violent bomb throwing”.

But it’s ok, I’ll write off your blatant slander of me as a side-affect of your laziness and lack of reading comprehension.

When it comes to social values, you fully intend to force your social values onto the rest of us because, well, I guess because they’re your’s and that makes them right!?

That is completely, absolutely wrong and what is more important, you know it is wrong! To fight in the battleground of ideas for what one believes is not a use of force, rather they are acts of persuasion. On this one you are, IMO, deliberately saying something you know to be wholly untrue!

This is becoming tiresome; in an obvious attempt to justify your failed communication in an unrelated conversation, you seem to forget that none of the slight variations on the definition of “marriage” are all heterosexual. The point here is that a tiny minority pressure group is using the court system to force it’s own defintion on everyone else, and that’s just wrong. Maybe I should find an emoticon to express that, but I don’t speak “emoticon”. /sarcasm

Exactly right! Also, Garrick’s arguments about “the “harmonic oscillator equation” are pure sophistry and an act of cowardly obfuscation; that is, he is losing the debate and wants to change it to a different topic altogether and confuse the issue.

Not solely Rob’s. That’s my interpretation too

Of course, I adressed Rob directly, not as part of a group mentality.

The ongoing hypocrisy of lefties who decry the Republican Party for not being a “big tent” Party, then criticize them for including Christians. Too funny!
The real agenda of the Dem culture of corruption is a totalitarian, one Party system.

Zig,I think you are conflating the militant left with gays in general.

I think the homo marriage movement, especially the terrorist arm, is part of the militant lefties, although I have never seen any estimates as to what percentage of homos really want to be “married”. I do know some homos who are conservative, although tending toward the liberaltarian side.
As you indicated, it certainly isn’t an “all or nothing at all” situation.

Thanks Pparets. It’s possible to disagree with something morally, and still allow it in a free society still, isn’t it?

Within limits! We don’t agree with child molestors, rapists, theives, and others and we legislate against their actions in a free society. On the other hand, less government is best and as others do not like the government to dictate their moral behavior, I do not like it dictating mine.

On the other hand, when a moral choice like child molestation victimizes other human beings, any civilized society legislates against such immoral lifetsyle choices. I would argue that homosexuality victimizes their own sexual partners, the lives of those most closely impacted by homosexual conduct and society as a whole; and thus while not advocating that homosexual conduct be legislated against, it is another thing entirely for our society to grant its national imprimatur to a destructive lifestyle choice through any normalization policies such as marriage.

We can say that alcoholism or drug addiction is dangerous, destructive to the people directly involved, their close associates in life and society as a whole and so we attach a sense of shame and marginalization to those choosing those aberrant lifestyles, as we should homosexuality. In these and others cases we as a sane, civilzed people shoud desire to discourage such perverse sexual experimentation and the destructive life course that follows.

Lastly, as I and others have said regarding this thread: (1) Rob is an atheist and does not share most of the moral and certainly none of the spiritual values of most Americans. He embraces the desire for political power for conservatism solely for power’s sake; and thus we can understand his opposition to the GOP embracing a non-homosexual marriage party plank that he thinks will keep them from holding that power. (2) Rob, while being very moderate and tolerant of Christians and Christian issues, including not getting excited over things like a crèche in the public Square; we can understand his antipathy towards any Judeo-Christian moral-social values in the GOP Party Plank, as he has no strong feelings over most moral issues, he can blow with the wind in these matters. (3) Where Rob really fails is that in his desire to rid the party of these Judeo-Christian values issues he is seriously dividing the party and more importantly conservatives along these lines and ensuring the death of the GOP and Conservatism in America, perhaps forever.

Oh bullshit. You guys approve of female on female action just fine. You are just trying to cover up your own homosexuality. You like your male on male action nice and dirty, so you can enjoy it in your special perverse way.

(Republicans) prefer their homosexual sex kept filthy, so they can enjoy it more.

Come out of the closets my friends.

Projection, much?

How can it be projection if i am not sickened by gay sex like you, or do not think people who do it are breaking moral laws? Only people like you, with your homophobe signature can be guilty.

You have no ability to reason, or make rational arguments.

The health threat posed by HIV-1 infection (human immunodeficiency virus, type 1, which causes AIDS) may have reduced public awareness of another major disease of homosexual men, hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Receptive anal intercourse is considered to be the principle route for acquisition of HIV-1, while HBV is thought to spread as a result of several kinds of homosexual contact. To better understand the transmission efficiency (how effectively they are transmitted) of the two diseases, three groups of homosexual and bisexual men were studied over a 2.5-year period. Members of group 1 (776 men) were seronegative for HIV-1 (did not have evidence of the virus in their blood) at baseline; group 2 (333 men, some overlap with group 1), was seronegative for HBV (did not test positive for antibody to hepatitis B core antigen, or positive for hepatitis B surface antigen); and men in group 3 (314, a subgroup of the first two groups) were seronegative for both diseases. Seroconversion rates (rates of testing positive for these diseases) were evaluated at six-month intervals, and data regarding sexual practices were obtained. Results showed that the risk of seroconversion to both HIV-1 and HBV was greater during the first year, especially during the first six months. The proportion of men who seroconverted to HBV during the study period was 19.8 percent, and for HIV-1, 7.8 percent. This was true, even though the prevalence of hepatitis B carriers was much lower than that of HIV-1 carriers. Participating in anal intercourse was a risk factor for both infections. A higher proportion of HIV-1 seroconverters (89 percent) had engaged in receptive anal intercourse within six months of seroconversion, while this was true for 71 percent of HBV seroconverters. HBV seroconversion, on the other hand, was more highly related to insertive anal intercourse, suggesting that the urethra may be a route of infection. An independent risk factor for HBV seroconversion was prior or subsequent infection with HIV-1. The concept of relative sexual transmission efficiency (RSTE) of HBV, as compared with HIV-1, is defined, and calculated to be 8.6. The data support the use of immunization against HBV and the use of condoms during homosexual intercourse. (Consumer Summary produced by Reliance Medical Information, Inc.)

These diseases and other are transmitted by bisexual men to heterosexual women and through them to heterosexual men. Homosexuality is a disease ridden lifestyle choice, not the least because of their highly promiscuous lifestyle.

Robert108: Rob, Garrick and others are mistaking liberty with sexual/moral license. In the name of liberty they are really saying that there should be virtually no restraints on human behavior (Rob even argues for no illegal drugs), even if, as it is with homosexuals, their lifestyle choice is destructive of themselves and society.

Several Greek societies (Athens and, thanks to 300, the much-heralded Spartans) openly embraced homosexuality even they reached the very heights of their power.

The Grecian Empire fell, as did the Roman Empire when those societies lifted all moral restraints, indulging in sexual license, including homosexuality. Open Homosexuality is always the last sign of moral decay before any great society falls.

You know it now appears you are not arguing for homosexual marriage on the grounds of liberty, but on your personal acceptance and approval of that perverse lifestyle choice!

You confuse leftie propaganda with the facts.

No, I just read the papers and the blogs, talk to folks, review the literature and the polls, stuff like that, and arrive at the conclusion that gay marriage is viewed more favourably today than it was before. I carefully stated that I wouldn’t say that the conventional view is that gay marriage is okay and only a fool would disagree with those two observations.

What drives change in conventional thinking? You mention compelling reasons are necessary and I agree but who and what determines that necessity? Why did conventional thinking around slavery change for example?

I can appreciate feelings of discomfort with homosexuality because I’m not completely comfortable with it myself. I don’t spend much time worrying about it, mostly because I don’t have such inclinations personally, the inclinations and/or preferences that others own and express are none of my business particularly and I don’t see what harm is caused.

I have difficulty with your position as advanced because it doesn’t appear consistent with your “free choices made by free people” principle. Instead it relies on the principle of “that’s the way we’ve always done it”, which does carry weight I agree but doesn’t stand as a very effective defense when confronted with FCMBFP. As social beings we don’t expect to get our own way on everything we do but we shouldn’t expect our personal choices to be curtailed absent some pretty compelling reason and I fail to see your compelling reason for curtailing individual choice in this case.

If one views history as the progression of individual freedom then I think the onus of suppressing freedom rests with the suppressor…IMO of course.

correction: closeted

Unlike you, I support the Constitution. If you need to be reminded about that, consider yourself reminded.
Again, you go off into a wild generalization, instead of sticking to the issue at hand. Why do you do that?
Maybe you consider the Constitution to be “oppressive” or “anti-liberty”, then?

What are you? Retarded? You didn’t even address the issue.

If rights are contingent upon an up or down vote, then they aren’t rights. By advocating such a crap position you are no different than populists like O’Reilly, or open fascists like Obama.

Sniping at me for “not supporting the constitution” is simply the stupidest, and widest generalization, you have ever made. And if you were ever put into a position to where you had to defend that remark to save your life…you’d no longer be with us.

Currently the GOP chooses to apply the “maximum individual liberty” portion of its platform only selectively, excluding gays from it.

Using the courts to force a tiny minority agenda on the general population is not “liberty” in any sense of the word; it’s tyranny, and the epitome of “nanny state” thinking.

We can’t win by pandering, as the McCain candidacy clearly illustrated. Sarah gave the Party some contrast, and we benefited from that, but the Presidential candidate needs to offer a clear choice, and McCain failed to do that.

i promise you, the country will not explode if everyone has equal rights.

Axx, I repeat:

Homosexuality isn’t illegal anymore. Lawrence vs Texas fixed that. And I believe that to be a good thing. But now that it’s legal, you can’t say it’s about rights anymore. Adam and Steve can live right next door to Adam and Eve and do whatever floats their boats. The issue is whether Adam and Eve have to say, in public “Adam and Steve have as good of a relationship as we do.”
When framed like that (properly), the answer is, of course, no.

It’s not about rights. It’s about acceptance. Have a good day.

Hey Move,

If a black man is gay do you hate him twice as much?

Robert, that is insane. Not really a counter argument, is it? Do you also support denying African Americans the right to marry each other (if they so choose) on the basis of African Americans majority support for candidates that tend to be fairly leftist? No. My position has nothing to do with political affiliation, although you obviously think that way.

It’s really a matter of numbers. The group agitating to hijack real marriage is very small; the number of Americans who want marriage to stay the way it has always been is very large. It’s really that simple. The tiny group of terrorists(as their behavior in the case of Prop 8 illustrates) is trying to take away the freedom of a very large majority here. That’s tyranny, not freedom.
This was never an issue until the minority activists started attacking real marriage. It is the right of every American to defend against attack.
The Big Lie here is that real Americans want to “ban” something, when it’s actually the minority activists who are the perpetrators. Typical leftie victimology.
I have yet to hear an affirmative argument for changing the definition of marriage.
Why should we do it?
The comparison to heterosexual marriage between racial groups is invalid, and dishonest.
The lying activists in CA even tried to compare real Americans wanting to defend real marriage to the detention camps for Japanese citizens during WWII. There is no limit to leftie dishonesty, apparently.

not so Rob….Athens, which did indulge in public queer sex, rotted from the inside out and Sparta was not a society that ever embraced queer sex. Both were conquered.

The most famous book on this subject is ROMANS, New Testament. And Rome of course was the most infamous collapse of high civilization because of internal rot and corruption of the body politic.

A GOP endorsement of queer MARRIAGE would be a sellout of American values, a political disaster and the end of hope that this corrosive liberal onslaught on the traditional family can be reversed.

Your support for such an endorsement is really very shocking. May I suggest you spend some substantial time in prayer on this critical issue. I will be praying for you.

I disagree with your contention that the majority of Americans prefer to accept homosexual marriages. I don’t care if homos want to “get married,” I just don’t want the state putting it’s official stamp on the transaction. And I don’t want the imunosuppressed homo masses to join the illegal aliens (redundancy alert) in draining the bloated and underfunded social system by affording them “spousal rights”.

I would comment on this thread, if Rob wasn’t doing such a fine job of abandoning the Rights principles for the sake of which direction the wind is blowing.

So much for conservatism, hello liberalism.

Eddie,

We do allow it.

The problem is, the homos want to disallow any form of distance or disapproval to the point of criminalization of dissent.

Criminalization, in fact, of a major tenet of Judeo-Christian religion.

They’ve picked this fight and are getting one.

Snap-back has begun.

I think that fixed it. I threw a close tag in there for you. NOW WE CAN ALL STOP SHOUTING

I agree 100% with Rob!

Anyone conversant with the Constitution knows that the Framers were silent on social customs and issues; indeed, they went out of their way to prevent government intrusion into privacy.

The democrats latched on to ‘personal choice’ issues precisely because the GOP picked up that ball and ran with it to woo fundamentalist voters. In effect, WE gave them that useful tool with which to thrash us.

Poll after poll shows that few voters 35 and younger feel any angst about ‘gay marriage’ and other social issues. Indeed, they resent what they see as conservative nannies trying to control morality.

If individual states enact Sanctity of Marriage Laws, that’s well and good. The Constitution does not prohibit doing so. But, for the GOP to carry that banner is a mistake.

When we want to focus on limited constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, lower taxes and strong defense, more and more people only see the anti-this and anti-that banners floating over our heads.

What do you suppose those poor savages did to communicate with each other before the first English speaking dictionary appeared?

We have come a long way since then, and communication is much more effective, which is my point. Your cutesy symbol clearly didn’t serve your purpose, and I ignore emoticons for that specific reason. They aren’t clear, just like your “tongue in cheek” symbol had it’s tongue outside the mouth.

If it soothes you ego to believe that I purposely misunderstood you, go with it, but it’s just not true.

Words however (let’s pull “marriage” out of the sky as a wild example here) can have more than one definition.

This is becoming tiresome; in an obvious attempt to justify your failed communication in an unrelated conversation, you seem to forget that none of the slight variations on the definition of “marriage” are all heterosexual. The point here is that a tiny minority pressure group is using the court system to force it’s own defintion on everyone else, and that’s just wrong.
Maybe I should find an emoticon to express that, but I don’t speak “emoticon”. /sarcasm

pino: Once again, this isn’t about “liberty”, it’s about theft. Homos have no “right” to marriage; that’s simply a false statement. They have the opportunity to create their own official relationship, and yet they want to hijack one that they formerly despised. Why is that?
You have still not made an affirmative argument for changing the defintition of marriage to suit a tiny minority pressure group.

In our country, the wishes of a tiny minority are not as important as the wishes of the vast majority, which is why we vote on things. I wanted Fred Thompson to be President, so why don’t I have the right to that? If you don’t agree with me, you are taking away my liberty! Reduction ad absurdum.

:0

Uh oh, here we go, if we okay “marriage” between two men, or two women, if, in your theory Rob its all about “individual liberty” the guy that comes along and wants to marry two men, or two women, or his horse or dog should also be allowed to do so, because of his “liberty”.

We have to draw the line somewhere. Mark Steyn points out the case in Canada, where gay marriage has been legal, about to go before the Canadian Supreme Court to legalize polygamy.

Its all about “individual liberty” – supposedly.

The Religious Rights money has been like Heroin to the Republican Party

What a wild assertion, bill. Of course you can back that up with real facts, can’t you?

Politicians will take money from where ever it is offered almost without reservation. Look at the list of donors, they come from every walk of life and ideology.

There already is a party for whom morals and principles mean nothing — the Democrats.

There already is a party for which there is no concept of right and wrong in the traditional sense — the Democrats.

I invite all who want to follow the Babylon, Sodom, Gomorrah, Greece and Rome path to oblivion to join the Democratic Party.

Be gone and good riddance.

Just don’t infect the GOP with your filth and try to call it enlightenment.

Poor Carrick & Potato! They don’t like it that I poke at their hypocrisy. One for taking socialist unemployment, the other for being employed by a university paying him on a government grant!

Too funny!

I have to agree with Rob, “who is going to pick up and throw the first stone?” A quote from a friend of mine.

BTW, eddie, speech cannot “cause” violence. That takes a violent person using speech as an excuse.
Brush up on your knowledge of cause and effect.

No problem, but the homo terrorists want to hijack marriage; they’re not satisfied with legal unions. That’s the problem here.

How are they trying to hijack marriage in your church? No one is saying that you have to sanction gay marriage in your local church.

You want to take away the freedom to defend marriage.

No. I want individual liberty. You can determine what marriage is and act on it. So should they be able. But the State ought defend the civil rights of legal partner when it comes to estates and hospital privileges and so on.

But still waiting, why are we not talking about legislating the Third Commandment?

That was the conventional view for centuries but conventions are subject to change as I’m sure you’d agree. I won’t go so far as to say that the conventional view now favours gay marriage but it’s certainly seen more favourably today…generally speaking of course.

Nice try, Mike, but no sale. First, real marriage is still the conventional view, which is the essence of the minority activists’ objection. Conventions are subject to change, when there is a compelling reason to change them, but the homo activists never make that argument, as I have already noted.
It’s all about smear, intimidation and terrorism with the homo activists; they have no affirmative argument for changing the definition of marriage.
In the US, every time it is put to a vote to allow hijacking of real marriage by a tiny minority, it loses by a large plurality, so your contention that somehow the view is changing just ain’t so. You confuse leftie propaganda with the facts.

If the GOP and Conservatives compromise on certain core moral-spiritual principles (Abortion-Marriage) just to survive, even to survive as a nation; the question is this, survive as what? Germany and much of Europe compromised with Hitler in the name of survival, they allowed six million jews and millions of others to be slaughtered and now those same nations are virulently anti-Semetic and in the name of secularism are mostly socialist and ant-liberty. They survived, but as what? They survived without a soul, without any stable, sure moral-ethical-spiritual values to give their children.

If we are absent core moral-spiritual principles upon whose altar we would rather die than compromise, then we are but slaves of a small, savage political elite, we sold our national soul for “a mess of pottage.” We have already given, piece by piece our liberty to the state until it is now mostly a faded memory of the old fart conservatives you now decry as being past it! We are selling our national soul for the price of over one and one half million innocent human beings every year, all being slaughtered in the name of political correctness. Because we would not defend innocent life with our own, we compromised our national soul. Now we are selling the cornestone of any stable civilization, the tradituional family, to a small number of sexual perverts, all in the same cause and all for the same reason – cowardice. Don’t cry to me about divorce and unstable families, we sold them in the Sixties, we manufactured “no fault” divorce and told the Church to go to hell, so we destroyed the only institution that holds a nation together .

We will see homosexual marriage forced on us by the Judiciary and the Left, because we are willing to sell our national soul in the name of political correctness and some small hold on political power. We will compromise the GOP and Conservatism to be fashionable, out of fear, unable to stand up for the Truth no matter the cost. So it was in Europe, Russia, China, Cuba and many other nations, we are cowards willing to sell our souls for a “mess of pottage,” to gain power and I say, “power for what good end?”

Some of us would rather die fighting for the Truth than live in peace and prosperity for a lie!

Marriage is not a “civil right”.

But it is; it most certainly is a civil right

A marriage license, like a driver’s or hunting or fishing license is NOT a Civil Right, it is a privilege granted by the state to those people meeting certain qualifications. Two people of the same gender do not meet the minimum qualifications of the institution of marriage.

Remember, this very same conversation was being had when folks were deciding if inter-racial marriages were okay. And, if put to a popular vote, would have failed.

It is terribly dishonest to compare race to choice! One cannot choose to be black or white, but one does choose whether or not to engage in homosexuality. Interracial marriages and slavery were examples of cases wherein laws were enacted not by popular vote of all the people, based not on behavior of people of color, but their skin pigmentation and violated the Constitution as already written regarding all men being created equal, not all men choosing to do this or that thing.

God made man for woman and woman for man and marriage is between a man and a woman.

He may have. But we don’t legislate God’s will.

Yes we do, we enact laws based on Judeo-Christian morality, on the moral laws of the Ten Commandments. God said we shall not do murder, we pass laws that say we shall not do murder. Our national charter, the Declaration of Independence commits our liberty and our nation to Divine Protection under Nature’s God and the Constitution was written to enshrine that Truth into our laws.

No Neiman, the gop would not be comprising core moral-spiritual principles, it will simply be inviting the extremists who hijacked the gop to ride a different bus.

No maroon! The GOP has always been a mostly, very passionate Christian values party, yes with strong limited government, low taxes and other things, but without any doubt a mostly Christian values party. So, how can the minority invite the majority to leave?

Extremism is one of those words used to marginalyze people like “bigot,” “homophobic” and other such words; by extreme Leftist, Commie, anti-American, Un-patriotic people like, well you!

Grow up! By the way, where is your usual copy-and-paste nonsense, you must have hired someone to input thoughts for you today.

You have no rational practice in using logic.

Huh?

Who talks that way?

Does that even make sense?

Check out the links on my sig-line. From there, check out the facts, figures and events that those links, in turn, will spell out for you. Truth, logic, facts and statistics.

There is no rational basis for the rest of the 98 percent of heterosexual society to kow-tow to a 2 percent minority which are, by and large, diseased in mind and body.

Now go ahead and lecture us further on your command of rationality and logic.

Cretinous, preening, semi-closeted Metrosexual.

but in the long run we’re going to have to accept it.

Rob, no way in hell is that ever going to happen. I will never ever accept that evil behavior. I will have to ansewer for my sins, but accepting sinful behavior as ok is not going to happen.

as for turning the republican party into the party of no values, we already have that, it is called a democrat.

If the repubs. should have to bend over for gay marriage, then why don’t the dems have to allow rights to someone who believes in life and is opposed to abortion. You are not allowed to speak if you are a prolife person in the dem party. I don’t see them changing any of their perverted values for anyone else.

The dem party has no room for you if you are against coveting your neighbors goods either. What the hell do you think their attacks on the ‘rich’ are. (their def. of rich is anyone who works and makes money)

No, as a christian, i will not vote for dems or repubs. who have no values. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK HAS HAPPENED FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS.

The repub. party became something when it stood for something. VALUES. When it lost its’ values, stood for nothing, and became Democrat light, they got their ass kicked. did they not act and spend like democrats?

Fuck you Rob.

You haven’t addressed a single issue I brought forth, enumerating objective reasons why homosexuality is a clear and present danger to any society it infects.

If you are not going to address any of those reason, why not just come out and admit it, instead of falling back on the psycho-babble bullshit of bigotry and hate.

You are a fool.

Kind of getting beat up, Rob. Oh well. These are the reasons why government never stays limited. I.e., even people who generally favor freedom have “weak spots” when it comes to certain “social issues” or other issues, such as favoring protectionism for “American cars” or some such nonsense.

Socialism is a disease and it destroys our society because every organ of our society has a weak spot for it. The result is that just about everyone is suckered in.

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.

Amen.

Moving the GOP to the left and converting it into a Jr Democrat Party is a loser strategy for the GOP.

Let’s review the man’s recipe:

our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.

The only concept above that applies is individual liberty. And the gipp is calling for that to be maximized.

As I said sometimes communicating with you is hopeless.

So, you’re the victim here? Too funny.
Again, I ignore them because they aren’t an effective means of communication, as I have said repeatedly. You want to force me to adhere to your usage, but I’m exercising my freedom to use Standard English.

We don’t want homo terrorists telling us what to do.

They are not telling you what to do. It would seem, however, that you are telling them what to do.

It deprives us of our freedom.

It does nothing of the sort; this would be maximizing it.

By all means throw us under the bus, then.

Nice twist, it is actually secular conservatives trying to throw Christian Conservatives under the bus, not the other way around. Take the truth and make into a lie, lets see didn’t Lucifer do that to Eve?

By some accounts I actually feed my cats, dogs and even neighborhood birds.

I understand that’s “out” in today’s conservative worldview.

Absolute nonsense, this is beneath you Garrick, you are far too intelligent and capable of good debate to lower yourself to such silly, vacuus, inane ranting!

The entire fabric of human society is composed of interlocking family relationships, formed by marriage and the offspring resulting from marriage. We know who we are, because we know the families of our mother and father; it’s interwoven into our very identity as individuals.
The homo terrorists want to destroy all this to get a tax deduction? Now that’s insanity.

Human society determines what marriage is; it’s a social construct, and has tens of thousands of years of history behind it.

And human society is saying………change it.

First, Robert108 is right, the people have never voted for homosexual marriage! The people are NOT saying change it at all!

Marriage is not simply a social construct, it has always been a sacrament of the Church ordained of God and because God condemns homosexuality over and over again, homosexuals are not qualified for that holy sacrament!

Where in the world did you get that idea, Hannitized!!??

He’s just projecting his own sickness, as usual.

Neiman:

Emoticons are not part of human language, they only have the meanings the writer chooses and when I read a sentence, I do not rea emoticons.

What does “not part of the human language” even mean? Obviously emoticons are nowadays part of language. What then disqualifies them from “human” language?

As to “I do not rad emoticons”, that means you are ignoring part of the transcript of the information provided to you. Sounds like a personal problem. Not my monkey.

Hannitized… here’s a summary from your one-and only ‘scientific’ source…

A new nationwide study (pdf) of anonymised credit-card receipts from a major online adult entertainment provider finds little variation in consumption between states.

“When it comes to adult entertainment, it seems people are more the same than different,” says Benjamin Edelman at Harvard Business School.

AND,

Step away from the kool aid…. IT will do you in Rob.

Or is this swine flu?

if you willfully neglect part of the author’s original communication, as you admit you did here, then the problem lies with you the reader.

You missed it; I didn’t “willingly neglect” anything; I just don’t regard vague symbols as having specific meaning. Like I said, your “emoticon” looks like someone who is drunk, and that didn’t seem to mean anything in the context of how you usually communicate.

Again, you didn’t successfully communicate your whole meaning to me, and you insult me, instead of taking responsibility for being unclear.
As my initial response clearly indicated, you failed to get your intended meaning across. In spite of your inference, I really try to understand what people are saying.

…maximizing the liberty of gays.

At what cost, Rob? You still don’t get the reality that what you now call “liberty” is not free of responsibility for how it impacts others. Even freedom of speech offends some people, and some “freedoms” have significant impact on the freedoms and rights of others. It’s not some perfect world where everyone can be perfectly free without harming the freedom of others. It’s always about balancing things out, but then, marriage isn’t a “right”, and has nothing to do with “liberty” either.
It’s an age-old tradition, and the underlying fabric of human society.

Do you favor “maximizing liberty” for pedophiles, bigamists and zoophiles? If not, why not? It’s the same extremist civil libertarian argument.

That argument has always struck me as profoundly stupid.

That is because you are profoundly stupid.

If gay marriage is made legal then no court can stop anyone from marrying more than one person. The argument is that the government should have no say in who marries who, idiot.

If that is true then I can have 5 wives and you can marry all your boyfriends.

hanjob projects his perverse proclivities:

Oh bullshit. You guys approve of female on female action just fine. You are just trying to cover up your own homosexuality. You like your male on male action nice and dirty, so you can enjoy it in your special perverse way.

dino, you have such a warped point of view. That’s what happens when you spend your life looking out at the world through a cat’s ass.

Part Two:

Children will suffer most.
The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. Because homosexuals are rarely monogamous, often having as many as three hundred or more partners in a lifetime — some studies say it is typically more than one thousand — children in those polyamorous situations are caught in a perpetual coming and going. It is devastating to kids, who by their nature are enormously conservative creatures. They like things to stay just the way they are, and they hate change. Some have been known to eat the same brand of peanut butter throughout childhood.

More than ten thousand studies have concluded that kids do best when they are raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers. They are less likely to be on illegal drugs, less likely to be retained in a grade, less likely to drop out of school, less likely to commit suicide, less likely to be in poverty, less likely to become juvenile delinquents, and for the girls, less likely to become teen mothers. They are healthier both emotionally and physically, even thirty years later, than those not so blessed by traditional parents.

Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning about the impact of fractured families. If present trends continue, the majority of children will have several “moms” and “dads,” perhaps six or eight “grandparents,” and dozens of half-siblings. It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements; where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street, as millions do in countries all over the world today. Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation. And have you considered what will happen when homosexuals with children become divorced? Instead of two moms and two dads, they will have to contend with four moms or four dads. How would you like to be a new husband a generation later who instantly had four or six or eight mother-in-laws.

We must also consider a world of the future where immorality is even more rampant than today, where both unbridled homosexual and heterosexual liaisons are the norm. The apostle Paul described such a society in the book of Romans, referring apparently to ancient Rome. He wrote, “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless” (Romans 1:29–31).

It appears likely now that the demise of families will accelerate this type of decline dramatically, resulting in a chaotic culture that will rip kids apart emotionally.

There are many more reasons why homosexuality and homosexual marriage are a real danger to children, families and society. The problem is, most liberals and an increasing number of conservatives are being sold by a liberal education system, politicians, jurists and the media on the idea that homosexuality is normal and there are no consequences to homosexual marriage. Well, they are wrong and while people like Dino are right, homosexual marriage will become a fact of life, the price for being politically correct, for being fashionable, is the destruction of the family, irreparable harm to children and an immoral society more like decayed and pagan Rome than the America founded upon and that prospered under allegience to Nature’s God.

But, have fun and enjoy the dismal future you are bringing on yourselves!

the homophobia openly displayed here

Psychologist and gay activist George Weinberg coined the term homophobia in his 1972 book Society and the Healthy Homosexual.

Just the title of his book is an oxymoron.

We don’t have to go along with this tyranny, that we must accept gay marriage as inevitable, and even good.

This would kill the GOP and make the USA a one party totalitarian regime. All social conservatives would leave the GOP if this became official GOP policy.

I think you’re comparing apples and oranges.

Well you can think that, but it doesn’t mean you are right.

The people pushing gay marriage just want to be free to live their lives their way.

Its not as harmless as you think it is, Rob. These people are militant and a large part of their agenda is socialization and recruitment since they are a biological dead end and are having no children their own. I don’t want them in my children’s schools teaching alternative lifestyles and influencing them when they are young and impressionable.

The title of this post says it all. The Time Has Come: The GOP Needs to End Its Opposition to Gay Marriage. Implied in the title is that if we do this the result will be to get more votes by accepting hedonism and becoming more like the liberal democratic party. This will not work.

The result of doing this would be to drive conservatives out of the GOP. This is exactly what the democrats hope to achieve, a divide and conquer strategy over a fragmented party with no bedrock principles. This would essentially result in one party rule by the democrats who would expand their power over the private sector and increase tyranny in the USA.

These people are militant
They’re not.

Uh, tell that to the people they terrorized over proposition 8. You are naive at best. More likely deliberately disingenius.

Where ever they are, they are already there. They being married doesn’t change that one iota.

What you propose is to legitimize their “lifestyle”, socialize it into the mainstream and give them credibility and authority they would otherwise not have.

Your last post, and the previous posts you have made all are loaded with PC’ness wherein you seek to socialize me and other conservatives to accept this tyranny, this theft of the society we grew up in and change it into something we want no part of. Its not working and we will not permit it to happen.

Free Speech Rights Requirement – Does not cause, with reasonable suspicion, violence.

Right to Bear Arms Requirement – Licensing, taxation, and a lack of a criminal record.

Right to Religious Expression Requirement – Does not harm others.

All examples of unConstitutional leftie interference with our Constitutional rights.

You destroy your own argument, since you approve of legislation limiting rights, so even if you mistakenly think marriage is a “right”, the people can limit its application in the way they choose, which is one man, one woman, not too closely related, above a certain age. In fact, unlike actual rights, the requirements for marriage vary from State to State, under the Tenth Amendment.

BTW, eddie, there are just conservatives, despite your intention to divide us into groups, like lefties do.
If you can wrap your mind around it, try to answer this question: How does the “fiscal” conservative permit the social spending of the “social liberal”?
Conservatives are conservative in all areas, not your false construct.

You keep whiffing on the very real issue of a small minority pressure group trying to hijack the values of the vast majority.
That is neither “freedom” or “limited govt”. Govt exists as the expression of the consensus of the populace, limited by our Constitution.
Marriage is not in the Constitution, and is therefore up to the people, and every time the people speak, they speak for real marriage, and resist the hijacking of the homo pressure groups.
In standing up for real marriage, Republicans represent the majority thought in this country. Abandoning this principle to pander to loudmouth leftie activists is wrong.

Apparently not, Hannitized, since my state gave it’s electoral votes to President Obama.

Could you have possibly picked up on a more trivial subject?

If most people in America didn’t care about gay marriage then the vote in California would have gone the other way. It didn’t. In fact, even in Iowa it is the Supreme Court that removed the ban but if you put it to a vote, it will be defeated easily. Most people are afraid to talk about the issue but when it comes to a vote where they are in the privacy of a polling booth, their true feelings come out. You also have to factor in the fact that out of every 100 people, maybe 55 actually vote and many amongst those are against Gay marriage. That is why the only way this ban will take effect will be if the Supreme Court gets involved. The GOP should stick to their principals or else they will loose the support of their own base and they will barely make a dent into the Democratic Party base. What is left to be seen is how Barack Obama and the democrats treat the issue.

Looks like Rob went up and closed it in the post at the same time.

Thanks Pparets. It’s possible to disagree with something morally, and still allow it in a free society still, isn’t it?

‘litmus test’ of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.”

Rob, I couldn’t agree more. I am a strong fiscal conservative, especially at the Federal level. I am also a huge personal liberty supporter. It is long past time to acknowledge that all people should enjoy the benefits of civil rights as extended by “marriage”.

Again, no. I don’t think what homos do is “marriage”, so it can’t be “outlawed”, because it doesn’t exist. You’re playing the Orwellian game of redefinition, where something that only exists thorough legal coercion is now said to be “outlawed” by people who simply want to keep marriage what it has always been.
Nice bullshit, but I’m onto that trick.

It’s the homo activists who are trying to hijack real marriage for their own selfish minority agenda. Resisting that is simply the right of self-defense.

Robert, you need to get checked in to the hospital with the padded walls. Imagining things exist that don’t is one thing. The mind that believes that things which do exist are actually fake is beyond crazy.