Posted on 03/10/2015 9:17:20 AM PDT by sickoflibs
Why are so many conservatives, not just Republicans but I mean social-conservatives, unable to form communicate a coherent argument against this logic in interviews and debates?
The latest was Ben Carsons meltdown where he was asked on CNN if being gay was a choice and he replied absolutely, then he offered up prisoners who engage in same sex as his example, then later repudiated and apologized for his response, Ben Carson :
I do not pretend to know how every individual came to their sexual orientation. I regret that my words to express that concept were hurtful and divisive. For that I apologize unreservedly to all that were offended
I mean just because some small fraction of Americans have sexual desires or feelings (that sounds so much more sensitive) that differ from the majoritys(us) ; why do we have to be forced to change our behavior to make it look normal and validate it(against our wills) .
A perfect example is Christian bakers and wedding photographers forced to certify gay weddings with their services which is a result of gay weddings for marriages in many states forced upon them by liberal judges.
The whole premise is because they feel differently than we feel, we must change OUR behavior.
Why cant those like Ben Carson who disagree with gay marriage form a coherent argument against this?
Fundamental A&P demonstrates that, too.
I’ve never had the urge to attempt “that”, nor do I ever see it happening. It’s just gross...wrong...nasty...filthy...
The point is that the libs always put the onus on the defenders. I say we reverse that tactic and put the burden back where it belongs.
That is my line of thinking too
I read 50% of homosexuals will have HIV by age 50, & another report said HIV (or the drug to stop it from spreading) cause an Alzheimer’s effect.
Well, it will go by steps, I’m sure..
HAHA, I thought I was reading double, but no, just earlier you pinged me with :
That will come on the way.
Yes, yes. "If you call a tail a leg..."
Every culture on the planet, at all times as far as we know, has had a concept of a permanent, reproductive relationship between men and women. Although details vary, the opposite-sex nature of the phenomenon that we use the word "marriage" in English to describe is universal.
The question is not "is it a state or Federal issue?"
The question is, "Can a government that can change the meaning of English nouns into their negations have any limit on its power?"
Good job.
People who cannot form one of the many coherent arguments against this novelty are not really against it.
But marriage as such exists all over the planet and throughout history, and the vast majority of those who have practiced it are not familiar with, or do not honor, the Jewish and Christian scriptures.
The historical and cross-cultural arguments are much stronger.
I can see how its easy to come to that conclusion.
A number of commenters on this thread sole argument is ‘because God says it's wrong’ but that doesn't work in todays secular political environment where its ultimately decided by elections and public opinion.
The libs (as a gay) response is ‘God made me this way and he loves me as he made me’ and like Carson they are dead in the water (figuratively).
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.