IT'S OFFICIAL: Conservatives Can't Even Bear To Talk About Gay Marriage Anymore

Business Insider ^ | June 20, 2013 | Josh Barro

[EveningStar]

Yesterday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) became the third Republican in the Senate to endorse gay marriage.

Conservative media outlets haven't been attacking her for it. They haven't been praising her either. They've been ignoring her ...

So what's going on?

A substantial share of the staffers at these publications, especially the younger ones, are now supporters of gay marriage ...

Those who oppose gay marriage are sick to death of talking about the issue. They know they are losing the fight over public opinion and that their complaints are not going to convince anybody ...

[heye2monn]

Durbin is one of those low-tax, low-morals conservatives.

[CatherineofAragon]

“Live and let live” is great, but are the sodomites employing that philosophy when it comes to the rest of us? Just the opposite. They are trying to force not only tolerance, but acceptance, and even approval. Ultimately they want it to be a crime to speak out against homosexuality.

If they stayed in the closet, shamed, where they belong, we wouldn’t have a problem. As it is now, I will never back down nor give in to those filthy, unnatural,disease-producing perverts.

[heye2monn]

Our brilliant young people are shacking up more and attending church less. The clever ones are accelerating the collapse of civilization.

[skeeter]

I’m more of a live and let live kind of person. So this is not a big issue for me.

You'd better hope those you're 'letting live' let you live.

'Cause there's no indication yet they will.

[Durbin]

“You’d better hope those you’re ‘letting live’ let you live.
‘Cause there’s no indication yet they will.”

Well that obviously means you leave me alone, I leave you alone. You don’t do me no harm, I won’t do you no harm. I’ll treat you the way you treat me. I hope that’s a little more clear.

[Durbin]

Sorry for the ruckus. I wasn’t disagreeing with anyone. It was just my view on it. I wasn’t aware I could get attacked for that on here. My bad.

[EveningStar]

Josh Barro is the scum-sucking dirtbag who got John Derbyshire turfed from National Review.

Barro advocated that NR fire Derbyshire because of a piece Derbyshire wrote for Taki's Magazine. Barro said that the firing was necessary if NR wanted to remain credible.

Rich Lowry did fire Derbyshire, but I doubt that Barro forced him to do so. I think Lowry had had enough, and Derbyshire did it to himself.

[skeeter]

You must believe their lifestyle is the physical and moral equivalent of your's then.

Because if you do not, and instruct your children thus, and openly practice your faith accordingly, etc. I can promise you that they will not leave YOU alone.

[Durbin]

“You must believe their lifestyle is the physical and moral equivalent of your’s then.”

No I do not. As I do not believe yours is the moral or physical equivalent of mine either. Nor would I demand it or hate you for it.

[skeeter]

You are missing my point.

[ReformationFan]

Exactly. Though libertarians will disagree, the simple fact is social liberalism and the breakdown of the natural family always results in more big-government statism, something libertarians claim to abhor.

[Zhang Fei]

Barro advocated that NR fire Derbyshire because of a piece Derbyshire wrote for Taki's Magazine. Barro said that the firing was necessary if NR wanted to remain credible. Rich Lowry did fire Derbyshire, but I doubt that Barro forced him to do so. I think Lowry had had enough, and Derbyshire did it to himself.

I understand why it had to happen - the plutocrats who fund NR have business interests that would be affected by boycotts, and would have cut NR off if Derbyshire had not been fired. The rancor from that episode is probably why Barro himself eventually got the chop at NR. Nobody likes a Judas. At any rate, Lowry's loss is Taki's gain. The Taki crowd is a little cantankerous, but way more literate, based on the quality of the commentary.

[Theo]

This concept of “marriage” ... where did it come from? And who sets the rules?

Those who experience same-sex attraction are free to engage in sexual activity. But to call their relationship “marriage” is silliness.

[windsorknot]

I don’t feel the need to discuss the modern invention of “gay marriage” with radical “homosexual rights” advocates.

[sarasmom]

It happens, when one comes in on the end stages of a battle.

The “live and let live” perspective has been twisted beyond belief, into a “force everyone to pretend to approve of, and prohibit any disapproval, under penalty of law” by a new crop of low information, supposedly highly educated, ignorant PC controll freaks.

In the real world, people can be persuaded to tolerate others individual differences, in the spirit of respecting minority alternative lifestyles.

Also in the real world, a minority of “freak flags” does not trump the majority of “normal flags” based on how loudly some scream about their offensive to the majority “freakishness”.

I refuse to be forced to pretend to celebrate and promote that which I merely tolerate, in a “live and let live” free civil society.

[Nemoque]

This was a very strange article. He did a name search, and he came to the conclusion that conservatives do not want to talk about “gay marriage”. Lisa Murkowski is not exactly a leader in the GOP. Until this article, I never gave her a thought. My views on homosexuality are based upon Scripture and science, not politics. I would be depressed about the direction of our country on this matter if I were not familiar with church history. When Christianity began to spread throughout the pagan world, it encountered a culture in which homosexuality, pederasty, incest and prostitution were socially acceptable and even encouraged. The church called people to repentance and to abandon these practices before they could be followers of Jesus. We are back to the early days of Christianity. We are living in a pagan culture.

[NurdlyPeon]

Sorry for the ruckus. I wasn’t disagreeing with anyone. It was just my view on it. I wasn’t aware I could get attacked for that on here. My bad.

My my, how quickly you run to embrace the status of 'victim'. I think that tells us more about you than anything you've said.

[Lancey Howard]

LOL!
Another faggot writer upset that the fabulous homo lobby isn’t getting any attention. This is the kind of pouting people have come to expect from ‘Business Insider’, the Democrats’ answer to the Wall Street journal, Forbes, IBD, and other - - real - - business publications.

What a yawn.

[BigSkyFreeper]

IT'S OFFICIAL: Conservatives Can't Even Bear To Talk About Gay Marriage Anymore

That's what mainstream media wants everyone to think.  I think they're wrong.  I would love to talk about how evil and sick and perverse gay marriage is.  I believe it's an abomination.

[BigSkyFreeper]

National Review used to be Conservative. That was when WFB was running the place. Now that the kids are running Buckley's store, they're publishing watered-down Conservatism. Sure, Mark Steyn is pretty Conseervative but Rich Lowry is a moderate squish.