In response to:

Support for Same-sex Marriage Crosses Party Lines

gcovington Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 5:58 PM
I am SOOO sick of these FAKE CONSERVATIVES that write these articles saying if you don't agree with gay marriage or gay rights then your a HATER. Or your homophobic. Well in order to be a hater means you have to hate someone. I don't hate gay people BUT I totally disagree with there immoral behavior. I guarantee you won't get one person on either side of the isle to say they think pedophiles deserve to marry little boys or people should get to openly have sex with animals or for that matter marry them. To be a conservative means to not just belief in what you stand for but to have a conviction. Like Michael Barone and the Sen. we need to show them what Conservatism is about. Not what they want us to belief it is about.
DagNabbit Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 7:40 PM
erick24 Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 7:12 PM
History shows that once a society accepts illicit and deviant sex as well as the killing of it's young, the fall of that society is imminent.
TommyMaq Wrote: Mar 22, 2013 3:05 PM
"History shows that once a society accepts illicit and deviant sex as well as the killing of it's young, the fall of that society is imminent. "

Wrong.

"History" is the name of a section in the library.

To *show* something - to refer to actual evidence - means referring unambiguously to that evidence, so that anyone can seek and find it and judge for themselves.

Telling us which section of the library contains the evidence which you *claim* exists simply isn't good enough.

Try again, or are you content proving yourself impotent to back up your claims?
Stuart95 Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 6:11 PM
I personally don't care what people do in their privacy, as long as it poses me no harm.

But look at this from a different angle: "Conservatives" had a clearly socialist, liberal-activist president to depose in November, and could not muster the numbers to do it. What, exactly, will it take to get conservatives to vote - or are there simply not enough conservatives to win a national election?

Either way, I don't want to wait until 2016 to find out. Republicans need to open the tent for fiscally conservative social liberals (i.e. libertarians) to build winning numbers. If today's conservatives vote based on single social issues, then they can pout in the corner while the rest of us try to keep the US from turning into the next Greece.
Mark in CA Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 6:20 PM
"Fiscally conservative, social liberal" is an oxymoron. The social liberals, for example, who championed the "free sex" revolution and the "death of God" are responsible for the titanic increase over the last half century of single parent households. They also championed the enlargement of the welfare state in order to subsidize their policies.
gcovington Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 6:39 PM
So you think we should just surrender our morals and values and our belief in God just so we can win in 2016. And what then, change our minds when it's convenient to whats going on at the time. So do you think all these GAY people are going to change there minds and there votes just because the GOP says "HEY EVERYBODY WE THINK BEING IMMORAL AND GAY IS JUST OKAY WITH US NOW!? OH!! AND BY THE WAY WE THINK YOU PEDOPHILIA CS ARE OKAY TOO. AND ALL OF YOU THAT SLEEP WITH ANIMALS,,, COME ON DOWN!!! Don't count on it.
Stuart95 Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 7:01 PM
"So you think we should just surrender our morals and values and our belief in God just so we can win in 2016."

In your haste to defend your position, you are using the liberals' favorite tactic, the straw man. No one said anything about surrendering moral values; I merely proposed that "conservatives" do not vote in large enough numbers to beat even a polarizing threat like Obama. And I did not endorse pedophilia.

You may wish to consider that if conservatives do not form a coalition with another faction, like the libertarians, then you may be dooming yourself to many more years of fiscal horror AND - I repeat, AND - being on the losing side of all the social issues you fear.

Your choice.
Stuart95 Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 7:08 PM
OK, then I'm an oxymoron.

I think people should have all the freedom they can bite off, as long as it does not infringe on my rights. You evidently believe that everything distasteful should be outlawed (I'd go with that if it applied to Congress, which I find far more dangerous than gays).

But as a fiscal conservative, I don't want my tax money used to subsidize the personal behavior choices of others (with the exception of charity for those in dire straits not due to their own foolishness). The social liberals who want free birth control, unlimited unemployment benefits, food stamps for all, mortgage bail-outs, corporate cronyism, using the tax code to guide behavior, etc., are not fiscal conservatives.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 7:12 PM
erick24 Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 7:19 PM
Good luck with that Stu. But the writing is already on the wall, and it ain't good. Toying with God's covenant between a man and woman cannot end well for this country
Stuart95 Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 8:18 PM
My relationship with God goes right straight to God & Son. I never volunteer to talk about the government; He never asks.
In an opinion article in the Columbus Dispatch, Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman announced that he has changed his mind and now supports same-sex marriage.

He wrote that on learning that one of his sons is gay he "wrestled with how to reconcile my Christian faith with my desire for Will to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister."

He is not the only prominent Republican to come to this view in this way. Former Vice President Dick Cheney is another.

And at the Conservative Political Action Committee convention, a panel sponsored by the...