Posted on 05/14/2012 8:33:17 AM PDT by kevcol
Most people are humane enough to grant same Sex couples the right to see each other in hospitals and the right to make end of life choices—But its about the word marriage itself. Why does it always go down to defeat in election after election? Its not just Christian nut jobs doing it—it has wide support. Maybe this is a “bridge too far” for the Gay movement. Too much change too fast—slow up and maybe they will gain this—or coin a new term for it—Its almost a battle over semantics.
This happened in the 60’s, too. God is still not dead is neither is heterosexual love and marriage.
Young Americans are into a fad and most will return to their roots IF they have the freedom of speech and thought to do so. Homos (femi-nazis) are trying to use the power of corporations and government to intimidate and ban free speech and thought that exposes their lies.
They tried and failed in the past. They need a brutal Soviet Union government structure to acheive their goal. In freedom, they lose because they are liars.
Equating the implied behavior in anyway with the marital relationship is idiotic. Marriage is a sanctification of the procreational process. That is not in the slightest analogous to what is being inquired about in these polls. What these polls tell us is not what people actually believe. Nothing in these sort of questions even challenges them to seriously consider the subject matter.
What these pools tell us, rather, is how out-of-touch most of the public are with the fact that there is a war being waged by Leftist organizers against the historic premises of Western Civilization. A glib answer to the question whether one would support the clear oxymoron of "same sex marriage," or not, shows not a seriously held belief, but something else--an avoidance of an unpleasant reality; a desire to find something to go along with, to get along with those parroting the popular media lines..
William Flax
Traditional marriage - by definition is conservative. I think what gays are looking for is the legal safeguards of marriage - I doubt they want the more traditional parts... So why don't they modify domestic partnerships - and make them an interesting alternative? Something others might want to commit under?
Why not create a union for adults from scratch and see how it competes with the more traditional approach?
If it's going to be open - open it up for all. Some people might want to add aging parents to their insurance. The parent/child commitment can be looked at too. It's not just sexual unions, right? But while all the exploring is done - we don't have to put traditional marriage at risk. Leave that alone. Experiment with other options without destroying what exists.
If conservatives wanted to have 'bath houses' but decided we wanted to join gay bath houses and CHANGE their ways - like adding a prayer service from 2 to 5 pm daily - I doubt gays would be pleased.
Gays need to be a little considerate of our traditions too...
This proves the unbelievable power of politcal correctness, which is the adult version of peer pressure.
Of course. The most contentious social issue is abortion, and of course many will always try to couch it as the privacy issue of a women and accuse us of trying to push our values on another.
CBS LIARS will rot in HELL!
Yes, and they want religious sanction of what they know to be an irreligious act.
my experice has been the opposite. If a person goes for the balkanized conservative approache then they are just a rino and rejected.
conservative is conservative there is no scocial vs ecconomic vs pothead or whatever balkanizing.
The content of a politicians character carries over from all aspects be they ecconomic or scocial.
Homosexuals have ALWAYS been able to do power of attorneys and cohabitation agreements. CHEAP.
Given current primaries it seems the RINOs who reject social issues are an endaged species. Ask Charlie Christ, Arlen Specter, and on and on.
Anecdotal experience is just BS, the proof is in the elections. NC even outlawed marriage lite civil unions. smart.
Well, the biggest part of that is not getting “God’s approval”, but denigrating God’s authority and the authority of His word by getting the churches to ignore what is clearly stated in His word.
They have been in a relationship for many years. I don’t know the details of their business relationship....nor am I going to inquire. I think marriage is between one man and one women. Just saying.
I agree. It would be a welcome change if gays would make some effort to show a modicum of respect for people who have beliefs different than theirs. They're such bigots.
If gays did interesting domestic partnerships it might show there's something to what they're saying OTHER than a desire to destroy 'one man - one woman' marriage as we know it. I don't believe there's lots of gay men waiting to be in long term monogamous relationships. Just don't believe it. I don't think anyone believes it outside of the MSM - and they'll believe anything as long as it drops from the mouth of a liberal elite.
“that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.”
May be a little extreme. I don’t think that a death penalty for practitioners or supporters of the homosexual lifestyle is the right path to take as a nation.
Although it clearly states they're deserving of the death penalty, it doesn't mention when, where, or by whom it will be carried out, nor whether it's a pardonable offense.
You may have something there. There are 2 possibilities. Either the electorate is rejecting social conservatism OR the media wants to buy into that narrative, whether true or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.