You dismiss the idea of queer marriage as long as it doesn't cost taxpayers anything. You can't be that ignorant of the facts, can you? Homosexuals who work for the government want to name their "spouses" as dependents. Due to their lifestyle and practices, they have a higher rate of disease, more mental illness, more substance abuse, and a shorter lifespan. What do you think that means for the taxpayer? Or, for that matter, for private businesses' bottom lines?
And yes, there are costs besides monetary ones, no matter how much contempt you fiscal-only types have for social issues. School children will be taught that a filthy abomination is equal with marriage. More children will be adopted by same-sex couples, which opens those kids up to a higher probability of drug abuse, promiscuity, and mental and emotional health issues.
Not to mention physical and sexual abuse. Are you not aware of the fact that homosexuals adopt children and sexually abuse them from infancy? If you have a strong stomach, google the Folsom Street Fair. You'll see queers parading their adopted toddlers around on chains, in leather bondage outfits. But hey! Let them marry if it doesn't cost you money, right? /s
Then there's the issue of the slippery slope, and what will follow after queer marriage. The polygamists are already making noise, wanting their relationships to be normalized and approved. But you don't mind, right? Long as you don't have to pay for it. And the same will doubtless be true when the zoophiliacs are next up.
"Tea Party is a fiscal responsibility movement - not obsessed with gays, “queers,” homos, or whatever you term them"
I term them queers, fags, and filthy, feces-obsessed sodomites. Is that plain enough for you? I won't play the PC game of allowing them to redefine the language, as you are doing, in your self-satisfied attempt to be tolerant.
Lastly, how dare you accuse conservatives of being "obsessed" with queers. Their deviant, sick lifestyle is pushed in our faces daily while they demand not only tolerance, but acceptance and approval. Yet according to you, we should shut up and take it; speaking the truth about these deviants is "obsession."
Well, sister, you can take that liberal point of view and....well, let's just say you can ask your "gay" friends what to do with it. They'll know.
It means more social security paid in, and fewer social security payouts.
Or, for that matter, for private businesses' bottom lines?"
Less time off for pregnancy or tending to the children.