Posted by: Johnny at November 18, 2010 06:02 PM (mhmc7)

You know, it actually isn't quite that simple with this particular issue.

"A heretic is someone who shares almost all your beliefs. Kill him."

-- The Internet, ten minutes before 7 this morning.

I opposed GOProud being included last time because they were a brand-new group that seemed to simply be inserting themselves to push for gay marriage.  They had few apparent credentials and looked to be trolling.

And, frankly, the Log Cabin folks only poke their head out to snipe at conservatives.  Hell, the Hillbuzz guys (admitted Democrats) are friendlier to the conservative movement than Log Cabin.

But GOProud has proven themselves in the intervening time.  I've seen a couple of articles quoting them actually supporting Republicans and conservatives. 

If they'll let Meghan McCain in the door (assuming she doesn't get stuck) then GOProud should have a booth.

You know, it actually isn't quite that simple with this particular issue.

Posted by: Bill Whatcott at November 18, 2010 06:05 PM (7BU4a)

This isn't even a conservative-liberal disagreement.  It's a young-old one.  Look at the splits.  Young people (regardless of political affiliation) support gay marriage and older people (same) oppose it.

Bottom line, I'd rather have the damned bigots out of the GOP. 

This isn't even a conservative-liberal disagreement.  It's a young-old one.  Look at the splits.  Young people (regardless of political affiliation) support gay marriage and older people (same) oppose it.

Posted by: Johnny at November 18, 2010 06:10 PM (mhmc7)

You could argue the same point in favor of Obamacare or Amnesty.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo ( NJConservative) at November 18, 2010 06:08 PM (LH6ir)

Can we throw Palin in there somewhere so things get completely unhinged?

Posted by: 18-1 at November 18, 2010 06:12 PM (7BU4a)

Those are two issues that directly effect me and every American.  Gay marriage does not.

In fact, they endorsed a conservatives like Mary Bono Mack and Mark Kirk, despite their opposition DADT repeal.

Uh, Mack and Kirk are pretty much "moderate Republicans" by definition.

Lucy has taken her football and gone home.  Charlie Brown is safe.

The doctor is "out."

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at November 18, 2010 06:14 PM (8y9MW)

Giuliani does it right.  Nobody would think he's a socon.  But he doesn't piss on socons.  Even after he lost the nomination (badly) he still treated them with respect.

Purges help nobody.  Defend your point of view.  If it's good, then people will be persuaded.

 If folks keep wanting to hijack the term "conservative" and pretend that the gay agenda can ever be part of it, you're going to see more of this.

I was unaware that the term "conservative" is exclusively defined as "fighting the Gay Menace".

I'm torn on this issue. Marriage is a holy covenant between a man, a woman and God.

On the other hand, Jesus said that love is the greatest commandment and if two people of the same sex love each other then what's the problem?

I guess I have to strike a balance in my mind. I'm okay with civil unions but I have to draw the line at holy matrimony.

If that makes me a bigot then so be it.

As mentioned elsewhere, social issues will be trumped by fiscal issues these days.

; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; line-height: normal;" class="MsoNormal">Which bigots? The ones who disapprove of gays and gay marriage or the ones who
disapprove of religious conservatives because of their stance on gay marriage?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo ( NJConservative) at November 18, 2010 06:14 PM (LH6ir)

If everyone who did shit that other people disapproved of
were kicked out of the GOP, there would be any people in the party.  Who is disapproving of religious conservatives?  Are they being shunned by anybody?  Seems like kind of a one way street, that one.

Posted by: andycanuck at November 18, 2010 06:24 PM (eQPq+)

Yes, but they do at least ten percent of the Talking Out Loud, so.......

I'm not all that young and I'm OK with any group opposed to socialism in America. That doesn't mean I'm downwith "gay marriage," though, and the views of "young people" - the ones that increasingly don't marry anyway - don't really sway me.

Personally, I'm OK with "civil union" for anyone... But changes to the sacrament of marriage would need to come from GOD, not politicians.

I largely agree.  I wish the gay community would stop focusing on whatever principle it is that depends on a union specifically defined as "marriage" and instead just focused on civil unions that are the functional equivalent.

Exclude the word "marriage" from the equation and much of the opposition on the right dies down,  the gays still get the benefits of a civil union that is marriage in all but name, and this issue finally goes the fuck away.

Posted by: countrydoc at November 18, 2010 06:31 PM (131HS)

A man after my own heart.

_{Posted by: Meghan McCain at November 18, 2010 06:34 PM (1+OO5)}

He said A pizza, not a dozen.

That's what should happen, and probably would in a purer democratic system, if one suddenly erupted right now. But our country's not like that, and it doesn't look like the "trumping" is going the right way.

Odds look better that the cultural-socialism conservatives—Huckabites and Tory-wannabes and miscellaneous Polite Company types—will rejoin the Progressive hive that's their historical home (or make the GOP a permanent sub-hive of it), and together they'll ride the rest of us into hell.

It's kind of been happening like that for a while, actually.

Posted by: countrydoc at November 18, 2010 06:31 PM (131HS)

Good on ya, doc.  If we work together at all, we might eventually be able to even compromise on some of the stuff we are at odds on some day. 

The fact is, though, I have no problem with Gays having some kind of legally binding social contract (the "government" part of marriage)- I have a problem with them trying to wrap it in the trappings of marriage: which, socially and morally, has an especially esteemed place in our society for a variety of reasons.

I never have figured out the logic to that argument. Is it just the name marriage you are worried about? If they called it the Albatros instead you would be cool with it?

The only argument I agree with is the mission creep one where gay activists start suing churches to get them to marry them. That's the only one though and I assume legislation could take care of it.

You also need to work on your reading comprehension.  Let me simplify just in case anyone else is confused by your wanton mischaracterization.
Conservatism=Fiscal Con+Social Con+Defense Hawk
You can be conservative if you don't care about one of the three.  You cannot, short of deceitful liberal-style redefinition of the term, be a conservative if you are opposed to one of the three, particularly if your political priority is said opposition.

As the Official Spokesman for the conservative movement, perhaps you can draw us up a long, detailed list of each and every position one must hold in order to hold the right to call themselves a Conservative^tm.

as a barely-religious conservative/liberatrian i've never met a gay person who I could truly call a conservative.

once you buy the "social justice" meme of the LGBT agenda, that's it, you're done, there's no room left in that hotel for conservativism.

that's my opinion, if you don't like it, ignore it.

Exclude the word "marriage" from the equation and much of the opposition on the right dies down,  the gays still get the benefits of a civil union that is marriage in all but name, and this issue finally goes the fuck away.

But see.  There's the rub.  And that's where they're not flexible.  They want it all.  How many good, traditional, time-tested institutions does this nation have to tear down to appease a small number of spoiled squeaky-wheel brats.  That's why I'm conservative.   

Pro- or anti- gay marriage, in the end who wins?

The lawyers.

I was unaware that the term "conservative" is exclusively defined as "fighting the Gay Menace".

This thread's too gay.

I'm going back to the monkey dick pictures.

Posted by: s'moron at November 18, 2010 06:40 PM (UaxA0)

I don't know, if I was them I would be since somehow the federal fucking government is involved in marriage and gives special benefits to married couples.

You would have to ask them why the big deal over a name.

Posted by: PaleRider at November 18, 2010 06:42 PM (dkExz)

you're about 500 years too late for that in this country.

I'm a civil union person. Not so much that I really care but with the whole stupid ass hate crime laws, I can't get behind gay marriage. Some churches refusing to marry gays isn't a hate group to me but they would be due to our current laws.

Posted by: John P. Squibob at November 18, 2010 06:37 PM (XoqWN)

Okay but where do we go from there? I don't condone gay marriage but I don't want us to turn into the Westboro Baptists Church, either. I've been in some pretty hardcore, spirit filled churches that did nothing but rail against gays as being the problem with our society and I just don't see it that way.

Like I said, I'm torn.

Why the fuck aren't they satisfied with domestic partnerships that offer exactly everything marriage does?

Huh?

Posted by: s'moron at November 18, 2010 06:40 PM (UaxA0)

If it's exactly the same thing, why are we making such a big deal about what they call it?  We kill ourselves as a party with these intractable, and on some levels, illogical positions that we take on some social issues.  The left  makes more progress in the opposite direction on these issues as we do because our positions allow the left to portray us as against PEOPLE.   I'll go on to submit that most of the progress made on issues that are abhorent to certain groups, religious or otherwise, is made outside of the realm of politics.

I am against abortion, for example, but I also believe that it isn't, or at least shouldn't be a political issue or at least a perpetual plank for the GOP.  But I also think that people who are against should do everything that their conscience guides them to do to, to the extent possible, end it.

Gee this is kinda heavy for a thursday evening before the football game

That's what she said. Or, considering this thread:  he.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at November 18, 2010 06:30 PM (8y9MW)

True dat but it should be said that those societies worshipped multiple gods, not the one true God. Despite what Odickhead says, we are a Christian country.

Nice nonsequitur, though.  Approving (not tolerating or resigned to it, but forced APPROVAL) of gay relationships is in no way compatible with "conserving" the traditions that shaped this country and has formed the philosophical and moral heart of this Republic for the first 200 years.

No one is forcing anyone to personally approve.

What grand tradition is being horrendously violated by allowing two dudes to be on the same insurance policy and file taxes jointly?

Call it a "civil union" instead of "marriage" when it applies to same sex couples and be done with it.

Posted by: lowandslow at November 18, 2010 06:51 PM (rplS1)

Ahhh what the hell, we are all hypocrites anyways. We are deathly against social engineering by the federal government unless your talking about the social engineering the government does between a man and a woman then we're cool with it.

What grand tradition is being horrendously violated by allowing two dudes to be on the same insurance policy and file taxes jointly?

Fuck the social cons, yes and in 2010 the wern't worth a shit.  Screw the cuntry club republicans and the rino's, they on there way out in 2012.

Posted by: JEA at November 18, 2010 06:56 PM (2kRru)

Leave it to JEA to go that extra mile into unbridled insanity.

BTW, why did you leave out the "u" in "fuck?" Religious requirement?

Call it a "civil union" instead of "marriage" when it applies to same sex couples and be done with it.

You could start by googling the GOP platforsms for the last 30 years or so, at least once you've worked on that reading comprehension thing.  If you're not on board with the general, or "full spectrum" conservative agenda, the proper thing is to specify what part you agree with, as fiscal conservative RINOs typically do.

I'm confused.  People on this very blog keep making the distinction between "Republican" and "Conservative", but you're saying they're synonymous?  Which is it?

From the RNC platform:

The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment. 

OMG the RNC is a RINO!!!

The anti-gay bigotry of social conservatives is a huge fucking turnoff.  I'm sorry, but refusing to appear at a conference because a man is attracted to another  man is beyond asinine.  Even worse is the fact these groups try to dress up their bigotry as a supposed opposition to what the claim is the left-wing agenda of gay groups.  The fact they call themselves GOProud?  The fact they describe their politics as conservative?  Hey, who gives a fuck about that right.   Seriously someone needs to stand up to the wing of the Republican party that believes worshipping Jesus and hating gays is a prerequisite to being a decent, conservative American. 

It is bigotry, period. 

Call it civil union or call it marriage, why should they get a tax benefit over a single man or women?

I suppose that depends on whether or not you thing that anyone should.

"They're not going to take off work and drive two days to volunteer on a Senate candidateÂ’s race like pro-lifers and homeschoolers did for Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania in 2004."

As with so much else, Machiavelli foretold how the fiscal irresponsibility and overreaching of the government would lead to a popular uprising like the TEA Party Movement:

"Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony. Besides, pretexts for taking away the property are never wanting; for he who has once begun to live by robbery will always find pretexts for seizing what belongs to others; but reasons for taking life, on the contrary, are more difficult to find and sooner lapse. But when a prince is with his army, and has under control a multitude of soldiers, then it is quite necessary for him to disregard the reputation of cruelty, for without it he would never hold his army united or disposed to its duties."

Posted by: andycanuck at November 18, 2010 06:57 PM (eQPq+)

You're right. I used Phelps as a silly, nutjob extremist, I didn't mean to portray him as any type of Christian at all.

That lot is completely fucked in their heads.

I''m opposed to the repeal of DADT and gay marriage, but I would take it one step further; I'd invite the Hillbuzz guys.

Seriously, the entertainment value of CPAC would go up exponentially. There nothing wrong with stirring up the pot. It makes stronger conservatives anyway.

How very altruistic of all you folks here at AOS who support gay marriage anyway to make room for GOProud at CPAC. 

And how helpful for you to refer to people who object to GOProud based on its agenda as "poison".  Just think, you're helping us get 30% of 3% of the electorate!  The Union is saved!

It is conservative to be against tearing down an institution ordained by God as between a man and a woman, an institution that has been stable for millenia. 

You must mean the 50% divorce rate kind of stability. Is that what you are talking about.

I could care less whether gays get married or not or whether you like it or not but don't preach to me about the stability of marriage and it being ordained by God.

You can get married in a fucking courthouse by a judge and you can get your divorce in that same courthouse.

One of communism's most obvious tenets for takeover:  The traditions, institutions, and values of a country have to be destroyed. 

Looks like they've done a pretty thorough job.

I'm confused.  People on this very blog keep making the distinction between "Republican" and "Conservative", but you're saying they're synonymous?  Which is it?

I of course mean when the term "conservative" is used in everyday english without any further modifiers.  Many Republican politicians do not actually support the platform across the board, hence the term RINO.

From the RNC platform:

[greenhouse gas bullshit]

Why is it every time I read posts on shit like this, someone claims that a true conservative has to be a Christian?  Every time I read that bullshit, it makes me fucking puke.  Even worse is when it comes from the de facto leader of the conservative movement, Jim DeMint. My politics are very conservative and I have been an atheist for years. 

 I believe there is one issue that should define social conservatism:  opposition to abortion. Protecting the lives of the innocent in the womb should be paramount, not getting all bent out of shape over whether the government treats gay couples the same as non-gay couples.   Some of the very same people who were riled up when pot legalization didn't pass are the same ones telling me the government should be meddlilng in the marriage business.  Why the fuck should someone who believes in smaller government give a fuck if gay people marry?      I challenge anyone to answer that question without mentioning, directly or obliquely, Jesus or religion; you can't fucking do it..  The bigotry is fucking insane (and is growing extremely tiresome), regardless of how many fucking Bible verses you try to dress it up in.   It is the responsibility of the government to treal all individuals equally, including dudes that suck off other dudes and chicks that munch carpet. 

The only 'intolerance' I read about in this piece is where the GOProud lobby boo'ed the socon's off stage last year.  If I were them, it'd make me think twice about participating too.  Yet some of you clowns stand here and beat the victim?  Wow.  You're so 'enlightened' and 'hip.'  Look how unthreatened you are!  (As if THAT were the issue.)  Golf claps for all post-modern, culture-suckered, non-thinking rubes.  Bravo you nadless wonders.

I'd make a deal with GOProud...

First get Islam to break with tradition and accept homosexuals into their mosques for a basic Friday evening worship.  If they are able to do that, Jews and Christians will consider opening up a 4500 year old religious sacrament handed to man by the Hebrew/Christian God to gay participation.  At the moment, it's expressly forbidden, and they're touchy about it.  Frankly, you're kind of a rude dick for insisting on inclusion here, but hey - that's just you, right?  Good luck.  Kaythxbuhbye. 

This is another interesting venturing of opinion or at least a tangential proferring of opinion.   It doesn't quite take the cake though of Ace's scribbling on the TSA matter in his quasi Ven Diagram like middle approach that seems to suggest a blind acceptance of eroding liberty through arbitrary edict from Government H.Q.  

The fact of the matter is that GoProud is organized around a specific subset of the population that has a vocal agenda.  While GoProud is chartered and recognized as a 527 tax exempt organization that espouses conservative ideals, the nature of the organization is interesting in that it finds the need to correlate its membership through a certain segment of the population that prefers certain sexual partners over others.  I am not trying to be flip here but this is essentially what the core membership of GoProud believes even though they do not adopt it as an official political promotion within their 527 literature.

So even by not explicitly injecting into the debate that what binds GoProud, the fact is they are through their existence. 

While the conservative movement should be careful as William F. Buckley, Jr., penned years ago about blind dogmatic allegiance, it should also not be cowed into anything. 

Do you think GoProud would be willing to accept in their charter that they also embrace those who disagree with their lifestyle or those that denounce  same sex orientation as long as those harboring such views agreed on being conservative in multiple areas?  I doubt GoProud would endorse such let alone be willing to have those holding such beliefs speak at a GoProud convention / meeting.

I wonder if GLAAD would be open to the idea of a group that was anti-gay but yet embraced the ideals of unity, niceness, respect and pink color schemes . . .  speak to GLAAD in the round?  

How about a group for androids that embrace the ideals of Luddites?

I do apologize for going on and on here but I would strongly encourage the so called "conservatives of this here bloggy to perhaps study up a bit on the conservative movement and its foundations.  I would then suggest a more exigent approach to incorporating your new found knowledge.

For starters, I would suggest re-reading the Sharon Statement.

I'm not recommending the dismissal of GoProud from speaking at CPAC.  What I am recommending is perhaps a more stout discussion of why conservatives could logically and in their own right be authorized to take such a position you seem so far unwilling to promote as being reasonable.    

That's all I got.

Posted by: Holger at November 18, 2010 07:14 PM (V9Q+f)

Please refer to my comment @ 153.

So, now we're not allowed to keep the opposite-gender part of the definition of marriage.  What about people who want to remove the sexual part of marriage? 

I mean, what if two friends who are not attracted to each other want that close, committed, hospital-visits, health-benefits kind of relationship too, but do NOT want everyone thinking they sleep together?  It isn't fair. 

Why should social cons and GOProud hoist their personal social beliefs on the rest of us?  Let the Society for Plutonic Marriage enter the debate, haters!

"If we've decided that traditional families are no longer any benefit to our society then I don't think anybody should have any tax advantages."

People who bring up the lame argument above never seem to able to explain how letting gay people marry is going to have any affect at all on the so-called "traditional family".  It is completely baffling that conservatives, you know the people who constantly fucking decry the Democrats' tendency to treat people based upon their identity group, so eagerly do the same exact fucking thing when it comes to gay people.  Allowing gay people to marry has no bearing on the traditional family in this country, and the government has no business playing favorites with the tax code.   

How very altruistic of all you folks here at AOS who support gay marriage anyway to make room for GOProud at CPAC. 

And how helpful for you to refer to people who object to GOProud based on its agenda as "poison".  Just think, you're helping us get 30% of 3% of the electorate!  The Union is saved!

I've lost track of how many times I've heard people say something along the lines of "I agree with the Republicans on a lot of issues, but I can't get on board because of all the Moral Majority stuff."

As the younger, more socially moderate (at least with respect to gay marriage) voters start to displace the older SoCons, we're going to have to get away from the notion that we're defined first and foremost by opposition to gay marriage.  It's just not a plank worth falling on our swords compared to reducing the massive spending and scope of government.  That doesn't mean we'll have to do a 180 and endorse gay marriage, but we can't afford to purge anyone who does.

We didn't win in 2010 on God, Gays and Guns, and won't in 2012.  Fortunately, public opinion has largely shifted our way on gun control.

"Yes, they can.  Go into any Unitarian church and get hitched.  Boom.  You're married.  Even give you a certificate suitable for framing.'

It is quite obvious I was referring to government recognition, you ignorant dipshit.   

Hollowpoint,

Gay marriage has gone down in states across the country -- every time the people had a chance to vote.  This is a much stronger indicator of how many votes we're (not) losing because of social cons.

Posted by: Bob at November 18, 2010 07:22 PM (OtBXR)

I didn't say gay marriage had any effect on a traditional family, I said traditional families benefit society, hell even the government agrees that's why they get beneficial treatment. But if you think gay marriage or any other kind of marriage has the same benefit to society then yes I agree, no special treatment for anyone.

Those are two issues that directly effect me and every American.  Gay marriage does not.

Posted by: Johnny at November 18, 2010 06:15 PM (mhmc7)

How does amnesty affect you, *directly*, more then gay marriage?

"Allowing gay people to marry has no bearing on the traditional family in this country"

Allowing gay marriage will require all textbooks my children read in school to be re-written in a way that makes marriage gender-neutral.  Already, businesses that do not want to accomodate same-sex weddings are being sued for their stands.  Landlords of all stripes are being sued for not wanting to rent to same-sex couples.  Catholic adoption agencies have been put out of business because of their religious beliefs.

But don't worry, Bob.  It doesn't affect you.

#160

" Some of the very same people who were riled up when pot legalization didn't pass are the same ones telling me the government should be meddlilng in the marriage business.  Why the fuck should someone who believes in smaller government give a fuck if gay people marry?"

nice try, but the folks who want to keep marriage traditional are not the "meddlers" the people who want to change what marriage means are the "meddlers".

and believe me i take no joy in siding with the reglious right, some of them (but not all of them) are far too willing to use the power of the state to impose their beliefs on the rest on me and everyone else, it's about common sense and what has worked for thousands of years as opposed to a cultural dead-end. 

and believe me i take no joy in siding with the reglious right, some of them (but not all of them) are far too willing to use the power of the state to impose their beliefs on the rest on me and everyone else, it's about common sense and what has worked for thousands of years as opposed to a cultural dead-end. 

Posted by: Shoey at November 18, 2010 07:35 PM (yCH89)

Gah!  When did that last happen?  Did I miss it?  I thought we had that whole separation of church and state thing down pat.  Hell, most people think it's actually written in the 1st amendment. 

Hollowpoint,

Gay marriage has gone down in states across the country -- every time the people had a chance to vote.  This is a much stronger indicator of how many votes we're (not) losing because of social cons.

Today?  Sure.

In 5 years?  10 years?  How about 20?

How many votes from fiscally conservative, socially moderate voters do we leave on the table if we send the message that anyone who disagrees on any one social issue isn't welcome?

I'm not backing gay marriage, but suggesting that we purge anyone who is otherwise conservative except on one or two social issues is going to cost us in the long run.  We can still afford to oppose gay marriage, but making it a central, defining focus is a losing proposition even in the short term.

211 -  Isn't that a strawman though?  Who's arguing that it should be the 'central, defining focus?'  I haven't seen anyone saying that. 

Gah!  When did that last happen?  Did I miss it?  I thought we had that whole separation of church and state thing down pat.  Hell, most people think it's actually written in the 1st amendment. 

Check any number of "blue laws" or "sin taxes".

For example in Minnesota you can't buy alcohol or a car from a dealer on Sundays. 

211 -  Isn't that a strawman though?  Who's arguing that it should be the 'central, defining focus?'  I haven't seen anyone saying that. 

Exactly.  On the other hand, socons don't want to be made to feel pariahs in their own party.  Their concerns should be heard too.

211 -  Isn't that a strawman though?  Who's arguing that it should be the 'central, defining focus?'  I haven't seen anyone saying that. 

Anyone aside from the topic of this very thread?

When you have a group of conservatives who refuse to even be in the same room as another group who are conservative except with regards to gay marriage, I'd say the issue is being being given more prominence than it deserves.

#160

" Some of the very same people who were riled up when pot legalization didn't pass are the same ones telling me the government should be meddlilng in the marriage business.  Why the fuck should someone who believes in smaller government give a fuck if gay people marry?"

nice try, but the folks who want to keep marriage traditional are not the "meddlers" the people who want to change what marriage means are the "meddlers".

and believe me i take no joy in siding with the reglious right, some of them (but not all of them) are far too willing to use the power of the state to impose their beliefs on the rest on me and everyone else, it's about common sense and what has worked for thousands of years as opposed to a cultural dead-end. 

Posted by: Shoey at November 18, 2010 07:35 PM (yCH89)

Indeed - liberal churches should have every right to declare same-sex couples married in the sight of God as they see Him.  But that doesn't impose an obligation on the State to recognize same-sex marriage as a normative value.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 18, 2010 07:48 PM (plsiE) "

Another strawman I think.  It seems to me that what they objected to was the treatment they received from that group last year.  Perhaps we ought to be a little more critical of and save our ire for those groups that can't control themselves in public settings.  You know, those intent on silencing anothers message?  Or should we all just start flinging poo at each other right now and call it a day?

Posted by: JackStraw at November 18, 2010 07:52 PM (TMB3S)

Indeed.  And according to your own references, the last time was sometime in the mid-nineteenth century.  You fears may be just a wee out of whack with current events and contemporary culture.

IIRC, blue laws were struck down.  These days, if a business is closed on Sunday, its because they want to be.

Nope.  It's against the law for a car dealer to sell cars or liquor stores to be open on Sundays here in MN.  Granted it's state law and not federal.

Alcohol taxes, gambling prohibitions, etc weren't enacted merely for the purposes of generating revenue.

Posted by: Tami at November 18, 2010 07:53 PM (VuLos)

Heh.

0.62 % of the voting population is a real plum

Around 40% support gay marriage, with less than half opposing it.  Do we just assume that all of them (including the undecideds) are big government liberals and tell them that we don't want their vote?  Or do we agree to disagree on that one particular issue and welcome them?

Posted by: s'moron at November 18, 2010 08:05 PM (UaxA0)

Actually, this has traditionally been a problem across the board. "Moderate Republicans" have done significant damage to conservativism since the media uses their party label to slam conservatives. You can see the same process in action on abortion, environmental law, etc...

We certainly do need to reach out to moderates, but these organizations that serve as nothing but an attack dog for the Left have to go...

Posted by: countrydoc at November 18, 2010 08:00 PM (131HS)

Can't buy liquor in CT on a Sunday either.  As a matter of fact, the grocery stores cover up the beer section around 8:30 on Saturday night.

I think the car dealers are opened on Sunday though.  So we got dat going for us.

We have a two party system, with FOUR politcal positions...

Social Con/Lib

Fiscal Con/Lib

And now the fight is on as to who will Control those parties, and what the MAIN mission of those parties will be.

Posted by: Waterhouse at November 18, 2010 08:04 PM (BSkiI)

You mean the Unconstiutional Transfer of Wealth from the OLD GM stockholders (who lost everything)  to the Unions?

No happy hours in Mass either. Only happy hours are for food and if a bar runs a special on booze, it has to last a week (which isnt always a bad thing).

TWITTER:

Alaska update: GOP Senate candidate Joe Miller seeks injunction to halt certification of election - AP

Posted by: cali grump at November 18, 2010 08:18 PM (hL0k

I don't see her as switching teams outright.  I think the worst-case scenario is she and Todd invite maybe Nikki Haley or someone like that over for a threesome.

The sexual revolution is irreversible. So is AIDS.

Thanks for that by the way...  and herpes, hepititis, welfare queens, fatherless gangstas and taking more of my money to pay for all of it.

 "Can we like they understand they will not agree with us on that issue and move on with the support they have on other very critical issues?"

<The sentence syntax here is very near that of Gwen Ifill.

Posted by: George Orwell, Ltd. at November 18, 2010 08:17 PM (AZGON)

To be fair, many Hindu deities have multiple sets of arms.  On the other hand, while I know that Lord Ganesha has the head of an elephant and is the patron of prosperity, I believe Obama may be the only god with the head of a jackass.

Posted by: cali grump at November 18, 2010 08:25 PM (hL0k

I'm thinking pretty squarely of the box itself.  Both boxes, in fact.

What, too soon? Give it a few years.

Posted by: George Orwell, Ltd. at November 18, 2010 08:24 PM (AZGON)

<Orwell, good post.  I would also point out that GM's bond holders were made less than whole with the balance of GM's previous life's equity transferred to Union Members in order to fund their retirements while the rest of us provided GM with billions upon billions of tax payer dollar "seed" money.

I am sure more will come out on this scam just like many things in the Obama administration.

The band plays on while Rome West burns.  Nice....  

Thanks for making me ill, friend.

Posted by: actual conservatives in the US at November 18, 2010 08:35 PM (Dpbj/)

You are a fucking dickhead dude.  STFU already.

Posted by: THAT GUY WHO TYPES WITH CAPS LOCK AND NEVER LEAVES THE BASEMENT at November 18, 2010 08:37 PM (AZGON)

Yahoo news:  WASHINGTON – Republicans in the House have blocked a bill that would have extended jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed beyond the holiday season.

The most recent extension of jobless benefits expires Dec. 1. Two million people will lose benefits averaging $310 a week nationwide by the end of the year.

The measure would have extended jobless benefits through the end of February at a cost of adding $12.5 billion to the nation's debt. Republicans opposing the measure said that the measure should be paid for by cutting unspent money from last year's economic stimulus bill.

Democrats brought the measure to the floor under fast-track rules that required a two-thirds vote to pass, so the measure fell despite winning a majority.

Posted by: mpfs at November 18, 2010 08:43 PM (3TjSM)

Some of those are hysterical!

Why does no one talk about this? I've never heard anyone address this subject, and I say it's about time we do.

Talk about what?

Posted by: chemjeff at November 18, 2010 08:29 PM (PaSAU)

The three Ns.  Natural, normal and normative.

Homosexuality is, from available evidence, the product of natural phenomena: genetics, the intrauterine hormonal environment, and other factors.

In recent years, it's been regarded by medicine and science as normal -- that is, it's not in itself harmful to the individual or detrimental to his or her functioning.  We can have all sorts of debates over how homosexuals in modern society are exposed to various risks, but just being gay isn't in itself fatal to a gay person and doesn't cause physical disability.

The "gay agenda" now focuses on the third N: there is a concerted effort to have our society accept homosexuality as normative.  We are told not to hold up the male-female couple and the nuclear family as models for our children, that it's wrong to "brainwash" our kids into those traditional gender roles.  That is a huge step beyond opposing hatred of and discrimination against gay individuals.

I believe a society has a right (and an inherent obligation) to say that certain social forms are ideal, models to which to aspire even if not everyone chooses to conform to them.  And I believe that it is all right -- even desirable -- for American society to say that the ideal is the heterosexual couple and the nuclear family unit: it's precisely because so many Americans, straight and gay, fall short of achieving that ideal that the ideal is needed now more than ever.  We SHOULD promote the idea that a child needs a stable home with a mother and father married to each other.  That doesn't require us to ostracize or devalue individuals who don't conform to that ideal (though there seems to have been some value in the old idea that it was shameful to conceive and bear children out of wedlock).

Posted by: that guy who always thinks no one else has thought of his idea at November 18, 2010 08:43 PM (AZGON)

I am sure more will come out on this scam just like many things in the Obama administration.

The band plays on while Rome West burns.  Nice....  

Posted by: journolist at November 18, 2010 08:33 PM (O/NP5)

One thing the media seems to gloss over on this great success is that we sold stock that cost us $25 Billion for $13.4 Billion.

I don't know how much more of that success we can afford.

Thanks for making me ill, friend.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at November 18, 2010 08:34 PM (c0A3e)

Us mere mortals all came out of a box, my friend, and many of us spend a good chunk of our lives trying to get back in.

Posted by: JEA at November 18, 2010 08:51 PM (2kRru)

It doesn't, because Hitler would have said:

"I believe a society has a right (and an inherent obligation) to say that certain social forms are ideal, models to which to aspire, and those who choose not to conform to them must be exterminated."

See the difference, fuckwit?  (No, of course you don't.  You're a drooling cretin.  Sorry for asking a silly question.)

Posted by: George Orwell, Ltd. at November 18, 2010 08:52 PM (AZGON)

We still have about 1/2 the stock left. We can sell it after 6 months

Posted by: George Orwell, Ltd. at November 18, 2010 08:53 PM (AZGON)

What, that old thing?  I've climbed mountain ranges younger than that line.

Posted by: JEA at November 18, 2010 08:51 PM (2kRru)

Blow it out your ass.

Posted by: George Orwell, Ltd. at November 18, 2010 08:50 PM (AZGON)

Boxes.  Kittehs.  Same thing.

Now, kittehs in boxes -- that's an idea.

Posted by: dagny at November 18, 2010 08:50 PM (2GOHX)

Word. Gays aren't special. Get a grip. Act like normal folk and we'll treat you like normal folk.

Got it Stuiec.

We don't ostrasize the handicapped but neither do we aspire to it. I don't think it is a choice. I've watched children grow up who were giving signs of being gay as young as age 4. I don't hate them or blame them. However, I do NOT appreciate the normalizing of the behavior and the suggestion that people should experiment. I would think that heterosexuals aren't particularly interested in experimenting with the same sex but wonder if they could be coerced by a societal pressure? I would think that that kind of thing is damaging.

That's the thing HP.  What YOU are saying might be reasonable, but the gay activists WILL NOT "agree to disagree."  They will keep pushing and pushing, and calling good conservative allies "BIGOTS!!!!111!!eleventy!!11!" (see above) until everyone gives in to their temper tantrum.

I seriously doubt that GOProud is going to CPAC with the intent of calling everyone a bigot or constantly hounding anyone within earshot about gay marriage.

Are there unreasonably militant gay activists?  Definitely, but they're not going to vote with us anyways.  However not everyone- gay or straight- on the pro-gay marriage side is an obnoxious name-calling activist though.  Some are otherwise conservative and would back a fiscal conservative agenda.

Posted by: George Orwell at November 18, 2010 08:59 PM (AZGON)

There was an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents that had a similar image.  Very disturbing.

Please. New thread. Even if it's about kittehs and Star Trek.

I'm that desperate.

I wonder if Mr. Sulu owned a cat.

>Allowing gay people to marry has no bearing on the traditional family in this country"

Bullshit. Kids are being taught about alternate sexuality despite parents wishes and parents aren't allowed to opt out (Massachusetts). Businesses are sued if they don't accomodate gay & lesbians despite religious objections.

Gay marriage will wreck havoc on the family court system.  The whole construct of gay marriage is a state invention, and must be forced by the state.  In order to breed, they must "borrow" DNA from third party.  The state must be involved in either custodial process etc.   We have cases where non-related people are getting custody of children over biological parents, because they were partners. That precedent is dangerous to biological parents.

Posted by: George Orwell, Ltd. at November 18, 2010 08:57 PM (AZGON)

No, I meant that my line about trying to crawl back in was an old, old line. The new keyboard thing is standard protocol for a humor compliment and accepted as such.

BTW, I believe I don't think they should have backed out, but I also think this is more than just because GOProud is a gay group.   Recently GOProud basically told so-cons publically to shut up about social issues.   I find this highly hypocritical since their whole group is driven by a social issue.  Are they going to "shut up" about their agenda on gay marriage and DADT the next few years?  I highly doubt it.

Posted by: George Orwell, Ltd. at November 18, 2010 09:06 PM (AZGON)

I wonder what the TV manufacturer was trying to tell us by hiring Mr. Sulu to explain how they added YELLOW to the standard three-color matrix.  Fucking Twinkie, going to work for those fucking racists.

Posted by: steevy at November 18, 2010 09:10 PM (/MarE)

After Luke, she's damaged goods.

Posted by: Cmdr. William T. Riker at November 18, 2010 09:04 PM (EtyG5)

I fucked Tasha Yar.  I still have no idea what that makes me... or her.

Posted by: George Orwell, Ltd. at November 18, 2010 09:13 PM (AZGON)

So gay AND Asian - a twofer?

Posted by: actual conservatives in the US at November 18, 2010 09:14 PM (Dpbj/)

How do you sleep, knowing that a gay man might crawl out from under your bed or emerge from your closet or slither under your bedroom door... and touch your junk?!?

If I were you, it'd drive me absolutely insane.

Posted by: The Borg Queen at November 18, 2010 09:17 PM (c0A3e)

Wasn't you, bitch.  My Maker made me fully functional.

I fucked Tasha Yar.  I still have no idea what that makes me... or her.

Posted by: Data at November 18, 2010 09:14 PM (7AOgy)

Warf was a homophobe.

You know damn well he would have disowned Alexander if he caught Alex polishing the pipe.

Bullshit. Kids are being taught about alternate sexuality despite parents wishes and parents aren't allowed to opt out (Massachusetts). Businesses are sued if they don't accomodate gay & lesbians despite religious objections.

That's one reason I pay for catholic schools. There is none of that at least. Overheated polar bears but no gay marriage.

Posted by: swamp_yankee at November 18, 2010 09:26 PM (3DIBw)

Yeah, fuck you, no.  If he wasn't my best friend, I'd have really killed Spock to get at that T'Pring.

Posted by: actual conservatives in the US at November 18, 2010 09:29 PM (Dpbj/)

Dude, we should hang out.

Posted by: Worf at November 18, 2010 09:28 PM (c0A3e)

The jihadis' favorite '50s tune:

"Ram a Lamb a Ding-Dong"

Despite your liberal self delusion I'm a happy normal guy..

Really?  Because you really seem to be kind of angry and really, really homophobic.

Posted by: actual conservatives in the US at November 18, 2010 09:29 PM (Dpbj/)

Why is it, do you suppose, that you are so all-fired enticing to those twisted freaks?  What about you makes them all hot and bothered and desirous of performing unnatural acts on and in your person?

'Cause, you know, I hear they have wonderful gaydar.

Posted by: T'Pau at November 18, 2010 09:29 PM (EtyG5)

Not... the Ahn Woon?!?

>GOProud is nothing more than gay conservatives that want to prove not all gays are on the libtrain Democrat-voting plantation.

NOTHING from GOProud has ever been single issue

Okay Lansing, so when they tell So-cons to shut up about social issues we can expect them to drop gay marriage and DADT from their platform(because those are social issues too).   I didn't think so.

Just goes to show you where GOProud's priorities lie.  They want so-cons to cede the social issues, but they won't do the same.

Posted by: George Orwell, Ltd. at November 18, 2010 09:35 PM (AZGON)

That's because the Enterprise NCC-1701D was a timeshare, operated by Marriott Vacation Club.

>The social cons, at least the ones that are fiscal conservatives second or not at all, can go pound sand.

There are very few socially libs that are fiscal conservatives...(Arnold, The Maine Sisters etc.).  Most so-cons are fiscal Conservative.    We understand that morality suddenly comes back in style when people have to rely on themselves.

Posted by: Crewman #7 at November 18, 2010 09:39 PM (SwkdU)

Don't forget your heavy greasy-looking stage makeup!

Posted by: John Galt at November 18, 2010 09:34 PM (NLWij)

The first socially conservative principle is, what's yours is yours and not the State's or your neighbor's.

 If we don't get the ONT soon, I'm going to put on my red shirt and beam down to that unexplored planet over there.

Hell, if we don't get a new thread soon, I'm gonna TAKE OFF my red shirt.  Then throw a hissy fit.  Then pants come off...  c'mon ace, someone, anyone...

Posted by: actual conservatives in the US at November 18, 2010 09:45 PM (Dpbj/)

Dude, I'm not the only one who noticed.  Look at what you have written.  You come off as angry, homophobic asshole.

Posted by: Greg at November 18, 2010 09:37 PM (KrQYB)

Heh, followed by the video of a UC student taking a policeman's baton and hitting him with it just before the officer draws his weapon on them and they back up.

I was hoping he opened fire.

>Quibble all you want over gay marriage, but at the end of the day how does it hurt YOU?  How does it make a difference to YOUR marriage?

Already asked and answered..

Kids are being taught about alternate sexuality despite parents wishes and parents aren't allowed to opt out (Massachusetts). Businesses are sued if they don't accomodate gay & lesbians despite religious objections.

Gay marriage will wreck havoc on the family court system.  The whole construct of gay marriage is a state invention, and must be forced by the state.  In order to breed, they must "borrow" DNA from third party.  The state must be involved in either custodial process etc.   We have cases where non-related people are getting custody of children over biological parents, because they were partners. That precedent is dangerous to biological parents.

479 You know what?  Gays BORE the fuck out of me.  Is there ANYTHING about them besides where they like to stick their dorks?

Fashion!!!!!!!!

Honest to God, they seem to think the universe revolves around them.

Not all of them are like that.  Really, a good portion of them just want to be left alone.

Quote: "Already asked and answered..

Kids are being taught about alternate sexuality despite parents wishes and parents aren't allowed to opt out (Massachusetts). Businesses are sued if they don't accomodate gay & lesbians despite religious objections."

;">I hate to break it to ya: Alternate sexualities exist, they always have and they always will.  The age at which this is introduced to a person should be later, but eventually your child will be exposed to gay people.  Do you want them to be ignorant dolts, or do you want them to understand it?

"Gay marriage will wreck havoc on the family court system."

;">How - exactly?

"The whole construct of ;">gay marriage is a state invention, and must be forced by the ;">state church." ;">(fixed that for ya).

"In order to breed, they must "borrow" DNA from third party."

;">So, are infertile persons banned from marriage in your world view?

"The state must be involved in either custodial process etc."

;">As it is in any unresolvable dispute between parties.

  We have cases where non-related people are getting custody of children over biological parents, because they were partners. That precedent is dangerous to biological parents.

;">There are biological parents who are certainly unfit to take care of a hamster, never mind a baby.  There are adoptive parents who are far more qualified than them.  The court decides what's in the child's best interest, not the parent's.  You really don't want it the other way 'round.

This is really about trying to force the rest of the world into pretending there is nothing odd about a someone with a male reproductive system aiming it at another MALE, ain't it?

What about lesbians? 

Posted by: T'Pau at November 18, 2010 10:07 PM (ocvEI)

It's not real rape-rape if you don't really mind-mind.

>Gay marriage is NOT their policy, nor their focus. DADT is NOT their focus. All of this hand-wringing is over gay marriage, and GOProud is NOT AN ADVOCATE OF GAY MARRIAGE.

Really!  Yet you go to their federal priorities page and two of the 8 are repeal DADT and banning a federal marriage amendment. Seems they are their priorities.

Posted by: lowandslow at November 18, 2010 10:11 PM (GZitp)

The point of civil unions would be to establish a legal structure for a relationship, to assure - for example - joint custody of children (for heterosexuals, of course) and benefits applied to both partners, etc.  In other words, all I'm saying is, separate the legal aspects of government provided marriage from the sacramental aspects.  Truly, marriage IS one of the sacraments of the church... WHY is government administering a religious sacrament?  And why should politicians have any say over it?

It seems to me like the perfect compromise: everyone that wants to enter a contractual relationship to share benefits, etc., called "civil union" can do so, and then it would be up to any church who they wish to provide the sacrament of marriage to.  Most churches won't offer it to gays, but of course I'm sure the most liberal ones would... but it would no longer be a political decision, but a religious one.  The Catholics would NEVER recognize two men as "married," but that would be between them and gays.

Posted by: Jeff at November 18, 2010 10:21 PM (4ic2h)

Life abounds with irony...

>;">I hate to break it to ya: Alternate sexualities exist, they always have and they always will.  The age at which this is introduced to a person should be later, but eventually your child will be exposed to gay people.  Do you want them to be ignorant dolts, or do you want them to understand it?

Completely unconservative position.  Schools should be teaching BIOLOGY as it pertains to sex.. BIOLOGY ONLY.  The alternate sexualities and the moral issues should be left to the parents.  Stereotype much?  Just because I am a so-con doesn't mean I am not open with my children about sexuality.

>"The whole construct of ;">gay marriage is a state invention, and must be forced by the ;">state church." ;">(fixed that for ya).

Nope heterosexual couples will come together naturally and reproduce creating a link to each other.  The English Common law recognized that- and as such made laws that recognized that.  Even miscegnation laws (a construct by the state) were created to stop breeding.   Homosexuals must rely on the state to keep that link, and if having children must rely on the state to take care of custodial matters.

>;">So, are infertile persons banned from marriage in your world view

The state recognized that their might be a few exception, but it still assumes that heterosexuals have the "parts" to reproduce.  Men/women.   It does not redefine the basics.

>There are biological parents who are certainly unfit to take care of a hamster, never mind a baby.  There are adoptive parents who are far more qualified than them.  The court decides what's in the child's best interest, not the parent's.  You really don't want it the other way 'round.

 And yet Julie Miller got  her child taken away because she no longer wanted to be a lesbian.

>However, if you don't eventually come to grips with the fact that "diffrn't strokes" exist, they will be severely disadvantaged when they go off to make their way in the world.  I now work with many gay people and I find that the stereotypes that some people on this board hold are flat-out wrong.

Jeff I am fine with gay people.   I have a problem when their agenda bleeds into my life.   You want to kick a partner out of his partner's bedside-I would be right beside you fighting that.   You want to fight a will that one partner leaves his partner.  I would be right beside fighting that also.  In fact, I was all for gay marriage UNTIL it started to bleed over into business, the Church, and the schools.  

>That's an exaggeration and a broad brush, but can any socons let me know if they would be okay with civil unions for all, and get married at church?

Completely fine with civil unions with the same bennies.  I am also fine with gays getting married in gay friendly Churches.  Freedom of Religion & Association. means just that.

>You're gay... that means you're for GAY MARRIAGE, right? Renounce it now or leave!" or "You're black... that means you're for ABORTION, right?! Renounce it now or leave!"

Nope Lansing, I don't think that at all.  I am not a purity con.  I don't own the rights to this party.  I just want a place as a social con.  I don't want to be put in the "back of the bus" because we are focusing on fiscal issues, especially when other groups keep focusing on their own social issues.     I also agree with several of GOProud's federal priorities, but that is because I am as much a fiscal con as I am social.   I think that they go hand and hand.  I also think it was idiotic for this group to leave.  Heck if you want to make a point; you debate it- you don't walk away like a baby.

>Businesses are private institutions, they should be able to establish policies as their owners or stockholders see fit.  If you don't like their gay-friendly or gay-hostile policies, do not patronize them.  Let the market decide.

Great now tell the court that.  BTW, I don't think it is good business to exclude anyone, but hey if your conscience tells you have to.. you have to balance that.

>The Church" can preach whatever doctrine they deem fit to make up.  You don't like it? Choose another one.  Let the market decide.

Fine with that one too.

>Public schools are worthless for more than just that reason, You don't like it? find a private one.

I agree and that is why I am for school choice.   Was pleasantly surprised that GOProud agrees with me.

> Just remember... there may be a day when someone disagrees with your way of life and would seek to ban it.  Legislating morality is a multi-edged sword.

I am not legislating morality or banning anything.  I am trying to STOP the change of the redefinition of marriage.  So-cons are not on the offensive.. We are on defense.  The definition of marriage has been man & woman for thousands of years.  So-cons are not the ones legislating the change.  In fact, most of us are okay with states(voters) deciding. It isn't OUR side taking it to the courts.   We aren't legislating anything.

> GOProud is looking for inclusion. And their inclusion does not mean the EXclusion of SoCons. GOProud never said "NO SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES!"

I said that the conservative group that backed out were a bunch of babies.  Honestly there were a few of GOProud's platforms that I was pleasantly surprised about.  I may be bringing my bias along, because I couldn't stand Log Cabins Repubs.  I think they were just dems in sheeps clothing.   Although GOProud does seem reasonably conservative.  

>There is nothing wrong or dirty with being a social conservative. I -- as a gay man -- defend social conservativism and religious organizations constantly.

And I have the utmost respect for gay conservatives.  Truly I think it is liberal gays that have hurt your cause more than anything.  You have so-cons who were completely okay with gay marriage until it was pushed into other arenas.   Really state marriage is a contract, and I as a so-con understand that.   The problem is that the liberal gay agenda is using it as a club to get back at all the people they think "hate" them.

@ Lansing...

Not at all!  Didn't take anything personal.  I think that may be the problem with some of these issues   I understand your frustration completely as well as so-cons.  I think with enough disinfectant and dialogue; conservatives may be able to get some agreement on some positions.  The problem I think is so-cons are scared, because of the power of special interest and the use of the court. 

I am told that by some gay conservatives that it it harder to come out as a conservative then it was to come out as gay.. lol

>pro-equine penetration.

lol-  Darn  horse love...

Bottom line, I'd rather have the damned bigots out of the GOP. 

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at November 18, 2010 06:11 PM (r1h5M)

Are conservatives against amnesty and illegal immigration "racists"? Using your logic, I would assume so. There's another political party that would be glad to have you if all of us "bigots" are making your pussy cry.

Posted by: The Drizzle at November 18, 2010 11:46 PM (ysCLj)

Gay and Lesbian, in and of themselves are not "corrosive."  Progressivism is.  If you think every gay/lesbian person you is a progressive, you're severely mistaken.

I spent a bit of time serving with some of these folks in the military.  Everyone knew. And, in fact, the (specifically) lesbian NCOs I had the honor to serve with were outstanding and extremely dedicated to their nation.  I belittle myself for having to say that.  They were simply: people.  No more or less than you or me.

Granted, the demographic tends toward the progressive side, but they're simply a product of misinformation poured on them from decades of progressive bullshit media.  There is always the lunatic fringe, also, on the right, that decries the basic right of liberty, via religion; but those bastards are the worst type of hypocrites (and also why I don't attend a church anymore).

Liberty is:  Liberty.  Let whatever God you worship take care of the rest when we're dead.  Until then, we stand together...and if you don't stand with us then fuck you.

>pro-equine penetration.

*fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap*

..........

On the other hand, Jesus said that love is the greatest commandment and if two people of the same sex love each other then what's the problem?.............

Posted by: ErikW at November 18, 2010 06:21 PM (qJWNM)

Jesus came to fulfill and affirm the law of God, and God's law specifically calls homosexuality an "abomination". Your argument is the same as the leftist argument, Erik(with all due respect). A sexual preference should NEVER be a driving force in your political choice; if it is, then you have to seriously ask yourself about your priorities and state of mind. Is making everyone accept a desire to assfuck another man really more important than the damage that the Democrats are doing to our country? If you feel that you cant vote conservative because of their "unacceptance" of a gay lifestyle, than that is EXACTLY what you are saying.

..........

On the other hand, Jesus said that love is the greatest commandment and if two people of the same sex love each other then what's the problem?.............

Posted by: ErikW at November 18, 2010 06:21 PM (qJWNM)

Jesus came to fulfill and affirm the law of God, and God's law specifically calls homosexuality an "abomination". Your argument is the same as the leftist argument, Erik(with all due respect). A sexual preference should NEVER be a driving force in your political choice; if it is, then you have to seriously ask yourself about your priorities and state of mind. Is making everyone accept a desire to assfuck another man really more important than the damage that the Democrats are doing to our country? If you feel that you cant vote conservative because of their "unacceptance" of a gay lifestyle, than that is EXACTLY what you are saying.

Posted by: The Drizzle at November 19, 2010 12:08 AM (ysCLj)

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

565:Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Posted by: tangonine at November 19, 2010 12:10 AM (x3YFz)

No one is "judging"; but if you or the gay community want to openly debate your sexual proclivities, then I am entitled to give my opinion, am I not? No, because some of you are using the same fucking buzzwords and bullet points as the left. Dont try to biblically affirm a gay lifestyle, it dont work. You cant be a christian, and gay(blame god for his hard-assed views). I am NOT a christian, so I dont care, but stop with the "judge not" garbage. Shut the fuck up about your sexual preferences: it has no place in a public forum, and if the gay community didnt bring it up at every opportunity, no one would give a shit.

> Dude.  I'm being ironic.  Ironic!

If only he was a little taller- it would hit him in the head.

Posted by: The Drizzle at November 19, 2010 12:12 AM (ysCLj)

I agree that it's the leftist agenda that is a cancer to our liberty.  I also agree with you that sexual preference should never be a catalyst for political +1.  However, you have to realize that being gay ain't all that great, and the people that are gay have some legitimate grievances... even if they misplace them toward the right (when in fact, the left is their worst enemy).  The left, as usual, uses that discontent to fuel gay rage and garner votes and claim power. 

The left thrives off of discontent.  While those that value liberty thrive off of happiness and well-being.  Odd, ain't it?

Posted by: The Drizzle at November 19, 2010 12:26 AM (ysCLj)

No, it's what rational people who are founded in a belief system say when they actually are telling you that you should shut the fuck up.

>but most people who whip out "Sodom and Gomorrah" are about to engage in Ted Haggard-style, weapons-grade hypocrisy.

You do realize that all  Christian are hypocrites.  That is the basis of Christianity.  We are all sinners hence we are all the same in Christ's love.   Christ died on the Cross for our sins and as long as we believe and repent- then you are a Christian. BTW, judge not lest ye be judged is the most overused and most misunderstood verse in the Bible.  The meaning is not that you aren't to judge.  In fact, Christ specifically told us to call our Christian brothers and sisters out on their transgressions.  Judge not lest ye be judge means that if you judge be prepared to be judged by the EXACT same standard that you are judged. 

Now enough of the Christianity lesson.  I don't generally use any of biblical beliefs in political arena.  As far as "pushing" my Christian beliefs on someone-can't be done.  Someone must come to Christ with their own heart, and discussing this issue should be one on one personal IMHO.

Posted by: The Drizzle at November 19, 2010 12:12 AM (ysCLj)

I think that might be a bit overstating the reaction to the statement. I could imagine a discussion going something like:

Me: "Hey, we've got some hours to kill -- want to go down to the lanai bar, hoist a couple, and do some girlwatching?" Other guy: "Um, well....I'm gay." Me: "Oh....hmmm.....know any bars nearby that have some of each?"

Admittedly, that's a very different scenario from someone introducing himself as "I'm out, I'm proud, just deal with it."

Incidentally, knocking back a few with a lesbian friend can be quite amusing: "Whoo-ee, six o'clock." "Yowzah, legs up to....<gesture>" "So, which of us would have a better chance? [N.B. -- both of us were "taken", she was short and somewhat butch-ish, I've got a beer gut and a face that might not stop a clock....but could slow it down a little.]"

>but most people who whip out "Sodom and Gomorrah" are about to engage in Ted Haggard-style, weapons-grade hypocrisy.

You do realize that all  Christian are hypocrites.  That is the basis of Christianity.  We are all sinners hence we are all the same in Christ's love.   Christ died on the Cross for our sins and as long as we believe and repent- then you are a Christian. BTW, judge not lest ye be judged is the most overused and most misunderstood verse in the Bible.  The meaning is not that you aren't to judge.  In fact, Christ specifically told us to call our Christian brothers and sisters out on their transgressions.  Judge not lest ye be judge means that if you judge be prepared to be judged by the EXACT same standard that you are judged. 

Now enough of the Christianity lesson.  I don't generally use any of biblical beliefs in political arena.  As far as "pushing" my Christian beliefs on someone-can't be done.  Someone must come to Christ with their own heart, and discussing this issue should be one on one personal IMHO.

Posted by: melle1228 at November 19, 2010 12:32 AM (o3WEK)

Pointing out to someone that their behavior is sinful is one thing.  Treating them poorly (exacting your personal judgment) because of it is another.  "Judge not" means exactly what it says.  Two words.  Pretty simple.

Posted by: The Drizzle at November 19, 2010 12:12 AM (ysCLj)

I think that might be a bit overstating the reaction to the statement. I could imagine a discussion going something like:

Me: "Hey, we've got some hours to kill -- want to go down to the lanai bar, hoist a couple, and do some girlwatching?" Other guy: "Um, well....I'm gay." Me: "Oh....hmmm.....know any bars nearby that have some of each?"

Admittedly, that's a very different scenario from someone introducing himself as "I'm out, I'm proud, just deal with it."

Incidentally, knocking back a few with a lesbian friend can be quite amusing: "Whoo-ee, six o'clock." "Yowzah, legs up to....<gesture>" "So, which of us would have a better chance? [N.B. -- both of us were "taken", she was short and somewhat butch-ish, I've got a beer gut and a face that might not stop a clock....but could slow it down a little.]"

Posted by: cthulhu at November 19, 2010 12:37 AM (kaalw)

We are on exactly the same page, brother.

>Treating them poorly (exacting your personal judgment) because of it is another. 

That we agree, but I think treating someone poorly because of a sin is against Christian doctrine: 

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." John 13:34-35

He also restates this in the lost sheep,prodigal son, lost coin parables.

@Jeff

I can't agree that Christianity should clean house; I think ALL should be welcome.  I agree with you on the what you are saying though.   "Loving Christians" who turn people away by using that kind of language need to spend more time reading their bible then they do on political boards. 

And I know that I have never used name calling on these boards, so I can't speak for them or what's in their heart.

Posted by: Jeff at November 19, 2010 12:57 AM (4ic2h)

That worked out well, didn't it?

Posted by: Jeff at November 19, 2010 12:57 AM (4ic2h)

>In other words:  Leave me the fuck alone.

That's your problem though.  Gay groups have used marriage as a club against religious organizations.  All these people want to be left the "f' alone...

Here is a couple of examples:

-In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.

 California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.

Posted by: tangonine at November 19, 2010 12:55 AM (x3YFz)

at risk of angering the interwebgods, I'm going to quote my own post and add this.

This is why the progressives implode: they don't want to be left alone (liberty) they want to be coddled and snuggled and nurtured and held.  That phrase doesn't imply that at all.  What those sentences mean is:  "I am self sufficient, and I will succeed if you just get the hell off of me."

/clarifying

More people who wanted to be left the "f" alone:

The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.

 A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.

ANd more:

Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.

: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.

A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

more:

 Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.

: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.

>
"Here is a couple of examples:"

So, at a hypothetical "'Ol Dixie University", should they be allowed to refuse entry to blacks and Jews?

And that is where we split.  Sex is a behavior that is not immutable.  Blacks and Jews(race) is immutable.  Not to mention the fact that a religious university should be able to discriminate-Yes.   Religious liberty is actually listed specifically in the constitution.  Sexual behavior is not.  Putting the two up to a constitutional test- I go with religious liberty.   So apparently you aren't libertarian.  You aren't with the "leave me the f alone crowd."

Posted by: The Drizzle at November 19, 2010 12:26 AM (ysCLj)

No, it's what rational people who are founded in a belief system say when they actually are telling you that you should shut the fuck up.

Posted by: tangonine at November 19, 2010 12:32 AM (x3YFz)

In other words: when someone brings up gay "marriage", I need to "shut the fuck up" if I dont agree with the pro-sodomy view?  Point taken, Kos.

>for their little bigotry-fests.

Again sex is a behavior.  We don't ever discriminate against behavior?  That is the difference.  Would anyone know that the "Scout" leader is gay unless he told or talked about it?

>Did you miss the last several years of research where sexual orientation is being shown in study after study to be an inborn trait?

Jeff, there has been nothing conclusive- so stop.  There is no gay gene, and none of the "studies" could be reproduced.  You know why?  Because sexuality is more complex than being "born that way."  Nurture and environment goes along way to deciding what your preference and fetishes are  hence why there are so many sub categories.   Really there a lot of people in the leather lifestyle who would love to "come out" and be part of society.  Should a master be able to become a scout leader and share his lifestyle?  After all it is his sexual orientation and part of him.

This is why the progressives implode: they don't want to be left alone (liberty) they want to be coddled and snuggled and nurtured and held.  That phrase doesn't imply that at all.  What those sentences mean is:  "I am self sufficient, and I will succeed if you just get the hell off of me."

/clarifying

Posted by: tangonine at November 19, 2010 01:06 AM (x3YFz)

For some reason, this reminded me of a time about a dozen years ago, when I was the Controller for a company that had just been acquired. For a period of almost a year, we changed logos and business card formats and division names and whatnot as various pieces were tested in various places in the overall strategy.

Every time something changed, all the stationery, letterhead, websites, business cards, etc. were changed -- ran us more than $50K per . And this was happening once every month or two.

So we went through yet another one of these exercises, and the nice woman in charge of business cards came by and asked me about reordering mine. "Nah," I snarled, "anyone talking to me had better know who I am already."

There were people in the organization that ended up with six boxes of 498 unused cards each (they came in batches of 500), just because their egos wouldn't let them use the old logo. We'd find them after layoffs, when we cleaned out their desks. Mind you, if we hadn't blown so much money on paper....

I'm sure that these people later went into the government and started meddling with other people's lives and demanding things, without ever figuring that everything comes at a cost.

>  Homosexuality is most likely an innate trait no different from skin color.

Yet you can genetically test a skin color, and no one decides one day that they aren't black like some "homosexuals" have.

>Being Jewish is also a behaviour, as it is a religion.

Oye!   It is also a genetic race, hence why there are certain genetic disorders like Tay Sachs that runs in the Jewish community. 

>As sexuality is not typically a topic at any of the scout meetings I ever attended, I don't thing a gay scoutmaster is going to cause the universe to implode.

Then how did they find out said scoutmaster was gay?  He had to tell them.   I see the boy scouts point though.  Generally girl scouts don't want fathers doing their camping trips, and I can see boy scouts not wanting someone who is sexually attracted to the male form to go on camping trips.  Do I think that gays are more likely to be a pedophile-no, but why take the chance with children?

>and I didn't say it was genetic, I said it was "innate".

I know the difference between innate and genetic, but innate behavior must be passed genetically. It is "programmed" knowledge.  How do that get that knowledge?  Genetics.  Homosexuality goes against innate behavior. We are programmed to mate. 

Yes I have heard of the studies with the rams who got hormonal treatment and then went straight, and have also heard of the birth order theories where the mother build a immunity to the male hormones.  None of it has been recreated. Like I said sexuality is too complex.  Our sexuality takes YEARS to mature during that time we are hit with nurture and enviromental processes.

>"I think that gays are more likely to be a pedophile-no, but why take the chance with children?"

Do you have any data to back that up?

That meant to read Do I think Gays are more likely to be a pedophile -no, but why take the chance with children?

> Oh, I get it... if you're born that way you're a Jew... if you convert you're Jew-ish!

I'll have to share that one at the coffee shop tomorrow

Your kidding me right?  You do realize some people may convert, but Jewish is a race as well as a religion.

Most Common Jewish Genetic Disorders

>I can pump you full of testosterone and it will affect your behaviour.  I did not change your genetic makeup.  Same with estrogen and progesterone.  BIG difference

Ah but what if there is a cure invitro then?  Are parents bigots to fix this hormonal anamoly?

>Semitism is a race, not Judaism.

Sorry for my purposes was going by SCOTUS 1980 ruling that Jewish was a race.  Makes sense though that Semite would be the race.

>Look at how Jeff,  tangerine and others here go out of their way to argue for this live and let live culture.

Yeah but it is live and let live unless it bleeds into traditional Americans life- then we are just discriminating bigots.  Nobody lets us live and let live.

>I just don't get all preachy when others don't choose my lifestyle as their own.

Neither do I Jeff.  My favorite cousin is gay.  I absolutely love him unconditionally, and I love his partner too. (My kids call them both uncle).  I think they love each other immensely.   I am completely for civil unions, and like I said if someone were to try to kick his partner from his bedside- those would be fighting words.   That being said- I don't think it is bigoted to understand that the acceptance of gay relationships is against traditional values. I also don't understand the need for homosexuals to use the courts to sue photographers etc.   Why go where you are unwelcome? Take your business to a gay friendly photographer.  Using the courts to make a point is  the "live and let live" attitude. 

>I would not take my business to a company that didn't want and respect my business.  I would not force them to take my money. 

I generally see that as the conservative position.  The problem is the fear of judicial activism.  The funny thing is that other than appointing federal judges-most of this should be decided on a state level.  The funny thing is is that states like California would have accepted gay marriage within 10 years without court intervention, but the more you force the issue through the court; the more resistance people have.

>You're essentially saying "Sure... you can get married, but you have to do it MY way".

No, homosexual marriage would be new law.  It is nowhere in English common law or precedent. If civil unions are exactly the same with the same benefits, and there are gay friendly churches- why can't that be the compromise? The reason the left wants the word marriage is so they can use it in the court for other purposes.

>  The funny thing is that other than appointing federal judges-most of this should be decided on a state level.  The funny thing

Alright I am stuttering.. time for bed Night

" Conferences like CPAC are a good place to hash out disagreements within the conservative movement."

Where conservatives like Coulter aren't asked to speak and participants like Joyner think it's a good thing.

Selective of one's truths, again.  This is getting a might pathological.

>Well...  do I think men are more likely to be pedophile -no, but......

do ya get how ignorant it sounds?

Men are more likely to be pedophiles..so that wouldn't be ignorant.

>As much as I love & respect them, I'll be glad when the older generation of right wingers go the way of horse and buggy, if ya get me. 

Whose old?