NR has fallen a LONG time ago.
The fact that the question is worded that way, as if the general assumption would be the reverse, shows that the NR writers are too influenced by the Eastern Establishment mindset.
I used a similar argument on my libtard sister this summer;
1. 57% of the American population suffers from a “phobia” that has not been clinically identified or diagnosed.
2. 57% of America is full of “hate”.
3. She voted for Obama when he opposed gay “marriage (and there for “hated” gays), but now that he’s for gay “marriage”, she’s equally OK with him.
The left has overplayed their hand on this one.
I am a good person, and I voted against it. That is all I have to say at this time.
Actually it is immoral to support gay marriage. Since the bible says that gay relationships are a sin, then it is moral to oppose a sin. So being against the sin (gay marriage) would be moral.
I supose a good person could also possibly be for same-sex marriage. Thus far the possibility is entirely theoretical for me, since I have yet to encounter any practical examples.
Anyone who even thinks it's possible is a moron.
Buggery doesn't lead to pregnancy.
The very concept shows an inability to grasp either the social, moral or biological significance of marriage. It is not about making a statement that you are angry at reality. It is all about sanctifying the family & the reproductive function.
William Flax
Classical marriage fosters stability of progeny and familial orientation through and across succeeding generations. Only one male and one female in a marital setting can direct these ends, Thus no other combination thereof should have any claim whatsoever on this unique societal institution.
I've seen this headline posted on NRO all week and it's bugged me every time I've seen it. This is NOT in question! The question should be 'Can a good person vote FOR Same Sex Marriage?" and the answer is a resounding NO!
Two Words: Sodom and Gamorah