In response to:

A Warning to Moral Conservatives

wmou Wrote: Nov 06, 2012 9:28 AM
As a moral conservative and a political conservative, I disagree with most of what is in this article. I want the feds to stop funding all private groups, not just those the politicians do not like. The govt picking which group is worthy of our tax dollars is unconstitutional. Why would anybody support an amendment which would force the govt's definition of marriage on all of us? That would be immoral.
Beethovens10th Wrote: Nov 06, 2012 10:45 AM
Would you rather the government force on you the recognition of a relation as "marriage" that is not marriage?
wmou Wrote: Nov 06, 2012 12:12 PM
I believe we all have a Right to define marriage for ourselves. To the majority, marriage is a religious institution and the government should not be involved. Govts should deal with civil contracts.
Bruce2397 Wrote: Nov 06, 2012 12:24 PM
Sounds like what they tried to sell us when they were claiming inter-racial marriage wasn't really marriage because, as some were so psychotic as to claim, black and white were so different there could not be children produced from such a marriage... not to mention that they were certain God didn't approve of it.

People peddle whatever sludge they think might work at any given time, but progress exposes them as small people, living in a crouch, trying to hold back as many others as possible.
Dreadnaught011 Wrote: Nov 06, 2012 1:18 PM
Even if it were NOT a majority opinion, we are not called to name anything we just prefer a marriage.

The way to decide what genuine marriage is appears quite obvious; assuming you were a legitimate child. The union of a woman with a man under vows of matrimony. Like your Mummy and Daddy, wmou. All other "equality" is just a farce.

wmou Wrote: Nov 06, 2012 3:19 PM
I have no doubt that God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman. I will not recognize any other "marriage". I believe marriage is a religious institution, and I believe in Freedom of Religion. Govt should not be defining religious concepts. We have a right to define marriage for ourselves.
Dreadnaught011 Wrote: Nov 06, 2012 4:09 PM

In fact, you insist on a right that wasn't given us. WE don't define real marriage, If we did, you could marry your fist; which after all has given you hours of pleasure.

Marriage is a vow, taken before God by spouses --one from each gender. We don't have the right to define other kinds of commitment as genuine marriage "for ourselves."
wmou Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 6:57 AM
"We don't have the right to define other kinds of commitment as genuine marriage "for ourselves." "
Then we do not have freedom of religion.
Lighthouse52 Wrote: Nov 06, 2012 10:02 AM
Legislators are to be "law movers" not "law makers." Their job is to adopt God's laws to the culture. When the culture is in confusion, the Federal government should support laws that are in harmony with God's laws. Usually, criminal laws are codified at the state level - stealing, murder, etc.

If Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Michael Barone and others are right and Mitt Romney is our next president, we moral conservatives cannot take our foot off the gas. We cannot let up in our advocacy for life and family. We cannot relax or shift into neutral as if some great victory has already been won. To do so would be to make a fatal mistake, and four years from now we will be kicking ourselves again, vowing once more not to sell our souls to the Republican Party, claiming that this time we have learned our lesson, only to...