Interesting Question: Can You Be A Strong Conservative And Support Gay Marriage?

[Fentoine Lum]

https://www.metroweekly.com/2018/07...gainst-state-gops-anti-gay-marriage-platform/

When it comes to policies that are designed to discriminate against gays -- whether its policies that allow gays to be discriminated against in housing, employment, etc -- the Republican party seems to be the main party pushing those policies.

So when a Republican in a state as red as Idaho came out in support of gay marriage -- it makes one wonder, is that stance a true conservative stance or is it anti-conservative? Dom Gelsomino is an openly gay, devout Christian who is running for the state legislature and he believes that while Democrats are more guilty of expanding government beyond its constitutional limits, the GOP has committed the same error when it comes to same-sex marriage. Another Idaho republican also supported gay marriage by saying "We as Republicans are and need to remain the party of inclusion, less intrusive government means government has no business in licensing families."

So I guess the question remains -- can you be a strong conservative and support gay marriage?

No it's not a good question, it's another diversion to keep the public's attention and focus on something else, anything else, so that the economic cannibalization of american society can continue unabated underneath all the niose and chaos.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I never said that.

you referred to religion and that my definition was of a certain religion. so if you did NOT mean religion, what did you mean?

 

[MAGA MAN]

you referred to religion and that my definition was of a certain religion. so if you did NOT mean religion, what did you mean?

I explained this to you earlier:

It depends on the religion.

 

[CFM]

What is an "NL" a National Leaguer?

Pretend all you want.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Pretend all you want.

Banjo pickers merely follow their African banjo picking forebearers/inventors.

 

[CFM]

Banjo pickers merely follow their African banjo picking forebearers/inventors.

They had to make it better because the Africans that came up with the idea were limited in their scope of thinking.

 

[Flash]

The "men in black robes" were split 5/4 on taking that right away from the States and granting it to the Federal gov't.

Why did the Fed have a different tax from specifically for marriage, long before this recent creation of homosexual marriage out of thin air?

They didn't take that right away from the states. States still have jurisdiction over marriage but the equal protection clause says they cannot discriminate based on race or gender.

If that means they took away that right from the states, it was already done in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.

The tax for marriage was the estate tax exemption for spouses which Congress said did not apply to gay married couples living in states where gay marriage was legal. That was found unconstitutional and in that case the court affirmed the right of states to regulate marriage [later modified to prohibit discrimination based on gender]

I agree with you in that I think that should be a matter left to the states. But, I also find it difficult to answer the question posed by the court that questions any type of discrimination without a compelling state interest involved. The only justification I can give is tradition and fairly universal acceptance (not based on religious grounds). In my view, that also means there is no justification to discriminate against polygamous marriages.

 

[TTQ64]

Better question is why anyone would want to be a "strong conservative."
It's a mental defect

WOW, I missed this yesterday.

You won the internet yesterday......shit and today too

 

[rhym3pays]

Pretend all you want.

I'm not a racist whisperer -- I can't read your mind -- what does NL mean

How can you be a coy racist? say it

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I explained this to you earlier:

so marriage is a religious concept, in your opinion?

 

[CFM]

I'm not a racist whisperer -- I can't read your mind -- what does NL mean

How can you be a coy racist? say it

It's been said. If you don't know, you're either an idiot or a troll.

The one that thanked you is a prime n-lover.

 

[rhym3pays]

It's been said. If you don't know, you're either an idiot or a troll.

The one that thanked you is a prime n-lover.

I already knew you were not going to say it -- racists and cowards are interchangeable.

 

[Ralph]

https://www.metroweekly.com/2018/07...gainst-state-gops-anti-gay-marriage-platform/

When it comes to policies that are designed to discriminate against gays -- whether its policies that allow gays to be discriminated against in housing, employment, etc -- the Republican party seems to be the main party pushing those policies.

So when a Republican in a state as red as Idaho came out in support of gay marriage -- it makes one wonder, is that stance a true conservative stance or is it anti-conservative? Dom Gelsomino is an openly gay, devout Christian who is running for the state legislature and he believes that while Democrats are more guilty of expanding government beyond its constitutional limits, the GOP has committed the same error when it comes to same-sex marriage. Another Idaho republican also supported gay marriage by saying "We as Republicans are and need to remain the party of inclusion, less intrusive government means government has no business in licensing families."

So I guess the question remains -- can you be a strong conservative and support gay marriage?

This nation was constructed on the republican ideology of the rule of law..... I fail to see the point in someone...anyone, accepting the rule of law as it stands. Anyone is allowed to be as queer (deviate to the norms of society) as they like.....but don't expect to push your lack of morality upon those who don't accept the queer lifestyle as "normal" in the face of science, religion, reason and logic. In other words go be stupid and immoral on your own dime. Its not HATE not to accept stupidity as a truth.

 

[CFM]

I already knew you were not going to say it -- racists and cowards are interchangeable.

I already know you know what it means. Dumbasses are easy to spot.

 

[Bigdog]

They didn't take that right away from the states. States still have jurisdiction over marriage but the equal protection clause says they cannot discriminate based on race or gender.

If that means they took away that right from the states, it was already done in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.

The tax for marriage was the estate tax exemption for spouses which Congress said did not apply to gay married couples living in states where gay marriage was legal. That was found unconstitutional and in that case the court affirmed the right of states to regulate marriage [later modified to prohibit discrimination based on gender]

I agree with you in that I think that should be a matter left to the states. But, I also find it difficult to answer the question posed by the court that questions any type of discrimination without a compelling state interest involved. The only justification I can give is tradition and fairly universal acceptance (not based on religious grounds). In my view, that also means there is no justification to discriminate against polygamous marriages.

I disagree with the scotus.

There is a compelling interest for the courts to encourage heterosexual marriage, because it has the, very likely, potential to create new little taxpayers.

Homosexuals have always had the equal right to choose to marry someone else of the opposite sex. Marriage, by its very definition, is a union between opposite sexes.

Lots of gender confusion in society, these days, ... and a collapsing same-sex societal safety net.

 

[Bigdog]

I don't know about should not, but if the government is involved, then religion should not be. I think there is a societal need for a contract, if you will, between two parties and that there be consequences for ending that contract. It helps foster a nuclear family and that doesn't necessarily mean man/woman.

I personally do not believe in same sex marriage, however, I believe it is protected under our Constitution.

What consequences should be meted out for breaking the contract?

 

[domer76]

The federal gov't should not be involved in the marriage biz.

lol

^This only became an issue for conservatives when gays started to obtain marriage privileges.

 

[domer76]

https://www.metroweekly.com/2018/07...gainst-state-gops-anti-gay-marriage-platform/

When it comes to policies that are designed to discriminate against gays -- whether its policies that allow gays to be discriminated against in housing, employment, etc -- the Republican party seems to be the main party pushing those policies.

So when a Republican in a state as red as Idaho came out in support of gay marriage -- it makes one wonder, is that stance a true conservative stance or is it anti-conservative? Dom Gelsomino is an openly gay, devout Christian who is running for the state legislature and he believes that while Democrats are more guilty of expanding government beyond its constitutional limits, the GOP has committed the same error when it comes to same-sex marriage. Another Idaho republican also supported gay marriage by saying "We as Republicans are and need to remain the party of inclusion, less intrusive government means government has no business in licensing families."

So I guess the question remains -- can you be a strong conservative and support gay marriage?

Sure. A THINKING conservative can. One does not have to buy all their bullshit hook, line and sinker to still be of that philosophy.

 

[domer76]

Of course you can, I am as "conservative" as they come.
But I believe a person can do whatever he wants with anyone he wants as long as they are both adults.
And they can call it marriage if they'd like.

BUT
They're not married, a man can not marry another man and a woman can not marry another woman. That's just silly.
They are free to call it that, but they're not "married"

They call it that because that's what it is.

 

[domer76]

why two men can not be married?
that's a serious question?

that's just silly, think how silly that is

You keep repeating the same thing, but offer nothing else.