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

[Grugore]

@Sear: "It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power."

Do you even realize that this is a perfect description of Hillary? I hope you weren't stupid enough to vote for the bitch.

 

[Darth Omar]

Gay marriage isn't a conservative or liberal issue, but a matter of personal religious/moral convictions.

Marriage is a cultural issue so the federal government should say neither yay nor nay on it. But they did.

As far as I’m concerned gay marriage is political water under the bridge. That said, from a cultural standpoint, I think gay marriage trivializes the *cultural* institution of marriage to where marriage is no longer tied to procreation.

And since SCOTUS stuck it’s nose into it, the legal precedent has been set for other forms of marriage as a consequence.

Wait for it.

 

[domer76]

Marriage is a cultural issue so the federal government should say neither yay nor nay on it. But they did.

As far as I’m concerned gay marriage is political water under the bridge. That said, from a cultural standpoint, I think gay marriage trivializes the *cultural* institution of marriage to where marriage is no longer tied to procreation.

And since SCOTUS stuck it’s nose into it, the legal precedent has been set for other forms of marriage as a consequence.

Wait for it.

Procreate all you want in your marriage. Do the two married guys down the street change that for you?

 

[sear]

@Sear: "It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power."

"Do you even realize that this is a perfect description of Hillary? I hope you weren't stupid enough to vote for the bitch." Gg #121

"Do" I "even realize that this is a perfect description of Hillary?" "Perfect"? No. I did not realize that. Perhaps you and I have different definitions of "perfect".

"I hope you weren't stupid enough to vote for the bitch." Gg #121

I hope for sustained prosperity for my Peoples & nation. Isn't that an interesting contrast in scope of hopes?

And if I may sir or m'am, how interesting that you are unable to distinguish between a difference in preference from you, and stupidity. I have no reason to question your belief. You've been quite candid. But your spectrum of comprehension is obviously quite narrow.

"I think it's time for him [Donald Trump ("R"-NY) Republican 2016 presidential candidate] to look like a serious candidate for president." Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY)

When Speaker Ryan (R) was asked if he supported Trump for president, the speaker's reply was: "I'm not there yet."

But here's what a former speaker had to say about Senator Clinton:

Of the U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), former Speaker Newton Gingrich (R-GA) said: "She's serious, she's hard working, she is a first rate professional."

Supplementing that, (then) current RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman said: "Senator Clinton is smart, uh, she's effective, uh ... very hard working."

Source: NBC-TV Meet The Press June 5, 2005

It's funny Gg. I don't recall anyone calling Trump hard working, except Trump.

“I'm gunna be workin' for you. I'm not gunna have time to go play golf.” GOP pres. cand. Trump “8/2/16”

“I don't take vacation.” “4/22/16” campaign rally Harrington, Delaware, & “5/5/16” campaign rally Charleston, WV

“I'm gunna be in the White House a lot. I'm not leavin'.” GOP pres. cand Trump “2/11/16”

 

[rjhenn]

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?

That raises another question. Can you be a strong conservative and not be a religious fundamentalist? Since, basically, the opposition to gay issues is based entirely on Old Testament 'Christianity'.

 

[rjhenn]

PS

a) Please quote the specific clause in 14A you believe compels this. Thanks.

b) Supporting the institution of marriage requires preserving and perhaps strengthening it.

And there's nothing about recognizing gay marriage that works against traditional marriage. In fact, it points up how desirable marriage is, thus strengthening the entire institution of marriage,

 

[rjhenn]

Dog breath did have one interesting point. I've long held the theory, impossible to prove, that the Old Testament views on homosexuality were based on a recognition that life, at the time, was very hard on the individual, and that society's survival was dependent on a fairly high birth rate, to replace the bodies that frequent warfare and just plain daily life, chewed up.

 

[rjhenn]

Procreate all you want in your marriage. Do the two married guys down the street change that for you?

Marriage hasn't been "tied to procreation" for a long time. Lots of people have gotten married without having children, and there are hordes of unmarried parents, mostly women.

 

[kudzu]

Marriage is a cultural issue so the federal government should say neither yay nor nay on it. But they did.

As far as I’m concerned gay marriage is political water under the bridge. That said, from a cultural standpoint, I think gay marriage trivializes the *cultural* institution of marriage to where marriage is no longer tied to procreation.

And since SCOTUS stuck it’s nose into it, the legal precedent has been set for other forms of marriage as a consequence.

Wait for it.

When was marriage tied to procreation?

 

[Gotcha68]

Name one argument against gay marriage that doesn't have a religious basis.

 

[Darth Omar]

That raises another question. Can you be a strong conservative and not be a religious fundamentalist? Since, basically, the opposition to gay issues is based entirely on Old Testament 'Christianity'.

No it isn’t lol.

Maybe you skipped reading my last post but I pointed out that SCOTUS set the legal precedent for other kinds of marriage besides gay marriage.

On what basis do we *discriminate* against polygamists now that we’ve opened the can of worms?

 

[Darth Omar]

When was marriage tied to procreation?

Throughout the bulk of Western Civilization lol?

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Marriage is a cultural issue so the federal government should say neither yay nor nay on it. But they did.

As far as I’m concerned gay marriage is political water under the bridge. That said, from a cultural standpoint, I think gay marriage trivializes the *cultural* institution of marriage to where marriage is no longer tied to procreation.

And since SCOTUS stuck it’s nose into it, the legal precedent has been set for other forms of marriage as a consequence.

Wait for it.

I agree government has no role in marriage. Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman in the eyes of God. I have always been all for civil unions for gays giving them the same rights as married couples.

 

[sear]

"In fact, it points up how desirable marriage is, thus strengthening the entire institution of marriage, " rj #126

If by "it" you mean the United States Constitution, or any portion therein, I challenge your assertion. I just did a character string search for "marriage" and got squat. That word is not in there.

"And there's nothing about recognizing gay marriage that works against traditional marriage." rj #126

My point precisely, though I note that your wording is ambiguous.

So as there is nothing about recognizing gay marriage, so too is there nothing proscribing it.

 

[Bigdog]

True. Although in recent years the increase in single mothers has been among somewhat older women who are in a better financial situation than younger women.

The teen birth rate is at an all-time low.

Ever since Murphy Brown, it's been liberal cool for 1st world mothers to intentionally deprive their children of their genetic father ... based on the belief that masculinity is evil.

 

[Darth Omar]

I agree government has no role in marriage. Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman in the eyes of God. I have always been all for civil unions for gays giving them the same rights as married couples.

Most people are on board with that but the lefties always insist on the whole enchilada.

Traditional marriage may be rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition but that’s beside the point. SCOTUS has absolutely no business meddling in it.

But they did.

 

[Bigdog]

Dog breath did have one interesting point. I've long held the theory, impossible to prove, that the Old Testament views on homosexuality were based on a recognition that life, at the time, was very hard on the individual, and that society's survival was dependent on a fairly high birth rate, to replace the bodies that frequent warfare and just plain daily life, chewed up.

It's based on the fact that many men will stick their dick in just about ... anything.

Old Testament law was about the mind's ability to triumph ... over basic instinct.

 

[sear]

"Most people are on board with that but the lefties always insist on the whole enchilada." DO #136

I wasn't aware Mexican peasant cuisine was entwined in U.S. civil rights law.

In civil rights law SCOTUS has already stricken down "separate but equal". I'll let the lefties speak for themselves. But if I parse your metaphor correctly, "lefties" advocate equality under law. That being the case, what do righties advocate?

Equality under law makes sense to me. If heteros can suffer the manifold anguish of wholly acrimony, why on this Sabbath day contemplate denying homos the same?

 

[Darth Omar]

It's based on the fact that many men will stick their dick in just about ... anything.

Old Testament law was about the mind's ability to triumph ... over basic instinct.

Never thought of it that way lol.

But one of the reasons western civilization was so successful was that it placed a premium on stable, productive, families. Without stable families a society will deteriorate. We’re witnessing that happen, in fact.

 

[domer76]

No it isn’t lol.

Maybe you skipped reading my last post but I pointed out that SCOTUS set the legal precedent for other kinds of marriage besides gay marriage.

On what basis do we *discriminate* against polygamists now that we’ve opened the can of worms?

14th Amendment. That was the basis of the SCOTUS ruling. What state recognizes it?