Here’s an example:
Someone posts, I’m not pro-gay, but I believe in civil unions. They could be for anyone, not just gays, something like a corporation.
Someone posts back: CIVIL UNIONS ARE PRO GAY. NO CONSERVATIVE CAN SUPPORT THEM.
The first guy posts back: Why would that be the case, if they were available to any two people? How is it different than allowing rights to corporations?
Second guy: CIVIL UNIONS ARE PRO-GAY. THE OWNER OF THIS SITE SAYS SO!
It’s that kind of thing a lot of us are talking about.
Oh?
The style or the substance?
Doesn't matter. The fact is, this site is a heterosexual site. That stems from our core values of which our social (and fiscal, of course) conservatism is but a part. We do not appreciate homosexuals insinuating themselves into our schools, churches or any other public forum. We have the right to disavow that. We have the right to band together to discuss our joint issues and feelings without that outside influence. And that right is what we insist on.
If someone disagrees with that, they're free to go elsewhere. But that doesn't give them the right to insist we change.
Look, Jim, nor anyone here, is saying they can't behave in their debased way behind closed doors. Just don't do it publicly, don't demand the overturn of hundreds of years of proven law that has made this country great. And don't demand we we have to be an audience to your lewdness. We refuse. Period.