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

FA #77:
The assertion I disproved was: The assertion was: "Marriage, by its very definition, is a union between opposite sexes. "

IT ISN'T!" FA #73

So I posted an authentic definition which said it is. So as I observed before:

"Your quarrel is not with me FA #73.
Your quarrel is with The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language *, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin ...


"I'm up two to one.

You go." FA #77
Click to expand...
It's not that kind of numbers game. So on that count, it's 1:1.

So here's the tie breaker:
Actor / singer Jim Nabors recently died. One radio news report I heard of it indicated Nabors died with his husband by his side. That was within the last year.

Prior to 1960, how many married couples in the U.S. were same sex? Can you name 3 such couples? I can't.

BUT !!

I can name 3 married couples from opposite sex, from that era. So can you.

For you to pretend nothing has changed is an obvious ruse to anyone that has lived in the U.S. for over half a century, as I have.
" Can You Be A Strong Conservative And Support Gay Marriage? "
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Yes!
 
sear said:
FA #77:
The assertion I disproved was: The assertion was: "Marriage, by its very definition, is a union between opposite sexes. "

IT ISN'T!" FA #73

So I posted an authentic definition which said it is. So as I observed before:

"Your quarrel is not with me FA #73.
Your quarrel is with The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language *, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin ...
Click to expand...

My quarrel is with YOU.

You did not disprove what I said. In fact, the citation I gave DISPROVED the original assertion.

Because ONE dictionary...which I still do not have a link to...defines it that way...and I offered two (including the one you offered) that define it differently...the score is 2 to 1...my favor.

Offer another...and I will offer two more that do NOT define it that way.




It's not that kind of numbers game. So on that count, it's 1:1.
Click to expand...

No it isn't...it is two to one.

So here's the tie breaker:
Actor / singer Jim Nabors recently died. One radio news report I heard of it indicated Nabors died with his husband by his side. That was within the last year.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with how the word "marriage" is defined?

Prior to 1960, how many married couples in the U.S. were same sex? Can you name 3 such couples? I can't.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the way "marriage" is defined?


BUT !!

I can name 3 married couples from opposite sex, from that era. So can you.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the way the word "marriage" is defined?

For you to pretend nothing has changed is an obvious ruse to anyone that has lived in the U.S. for over half a century, as I have.
Click to expand...

Where the hell did I ever say things haven't changed.

What I have said...and pretty much established as correct...is "that is not the way the word marriage is defined."
 
rhym3pays said:
So I guess the question remains -- can you be a strong conservative and support gay marriage?
Click to expand...

Marriage isn't a right. Therefore, not supporting gay marriage based on religious beliefs is not discriminatory. I do wish liberals were educated and not so dishonest.
 
Flash said:
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.
Click to expand...

Marriage is not a right nor is it defined as one in our constitution.
 
rhym3pays said:
In most cases it has very little to do with moral conviction and more to do with just flat out bigotry/prejudice wrapped up in religious liberty -- especially since no one is pushing policies to discriminate against adulterers, fornicators -- -you know, those other sexual sins.
Click to expand...

BS- it was liberals who pushed to undo adultery conseuences with divorces. Within a biblical Christian community all sin is condemned. It is also forgiven when repented of. Orthodoxy would not permit a person who has committed adultery to hold a position of leadership within the church polity.
 
rhym3pays said:
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?
Click to expand...

Not discriminate against gays employment, housing, etc.........no problem.
"can you be a strong conservative and support gay marriage?"...........no.
 
Flash said:
Heterosexuals and homosexuals are no more or less likely to have little taxpayers whether they are married or not.
Click to expand...

I disagree. IMO, most women prefer to be married before they start making babies.

You don't create more married couples with children by prohibiting gay marriage. A gay couple can choose not to have children whether married or not.
Click to expand...
 
Truth Detector said:
Marriage is not a right nor is it defined as one in our constitution.
Click to expand...

True, I should have said the power to legislate marriage laws.

Although in Loving v. Virginia the Supreme Court did state "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
 
domer76 said:
The compelling interest is called the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

The scotus declared marriage to be nothing but a Bigoted institution since its creation ... for the purpose of ensuring paternal lineage, ... which allowed for public ceremonial announcements of the hoped for uniting of two bloodlines thru a shared child.

They should have just abolished it.
 
Quote Originally Posted by domer76
Language and definitions change. Get used to it.

"How very Orwellian of you. You never disappoint." Bd #91
Click to expand...
d7 is correct. Don't take it from a "liberal". Take it from the conservative that helped turn the Republican demigod Reagan from Dem. to Republican. That bedrock conservative was William F. Buckley Jr.
"It [liberal] is pretty much now a lost word, in the original sense of being an effort to restrain government; and one has to keep that in mind when using it." William F. Buckley Jr. April 2, 2000 on C-SPAN
Click to expand...
FYI Bd there are many words of which this is true. "Celibate" is a euphemism. The dictionary definition was, and in some dictionaries remains: "unmarried". But our prudish society used it to indicate chastity. The euphemistic use was so wide-spread, it actually changed the dictionary definition.

Perhaps you misunderstand Orwell.
 
Bigdog said:
I disagree. IMO, most women prefer to be married before they start making babies.
Click to expand...

Women may prefer to be married before they start making babies (although 40% are not), but that has nothing to do with a gay couple being married.

If a gay couple already chooses not to have children, they are not going to have any less children if they marry. So, I still fail to understand how allowing gay marriages produces less children. Those people are not going to marry a person of the opposite sex just to have kids in wedlock.

Many gay couples have artificial insemination, surrogates, or adopt. And, many have children from previous relationships.

I am not making an argument for gay marriage but only challenging your view that it produces less children.
 
Truth Detector said:
Marriage has always been a religious pact between the man, woman and God. Now you support the government redefining it?
Click to expand...

I always thought the government just "incentivized" marriage because human history has shown that, generally, it is best to have both genetic parents raise their own children.
 
Bigdog said:
The scotus declared marriage to be nothing but a Bigoted institution since its creation ... for the purpose of ensuring paternal lineage, ... which allowed for public ceremonial announcements of the hoped for uniting of two bloodlines thru a shared child.

They should have just abolished it.
Click to expand...

They don't have power to abolish it. I still think we need civil marriage laws to protect property rights of spouses.
 
Flash said:
They don't have power to abolish it. I still think we need civil marriage laws to protect property rights of spouses.
Click to expand...

I meant abolish any gov't involvement in what should be a private contract.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top