I’m a Conservative Tea Party Christian Republican, and I Support Gay Marriage

Townhall ^ | 06/04/2015 | Justin Haskins

[DiogenesLamp]

It’s a _weapon_ to be used against Christians.

And that is exactly what it is. The Media is also a weapon, and it is being used against us. It is that Media weapon which has created this other weapon.

[Steve Van Doorn]

what this guy is missing is that "marriage" is a term not a legal statement.

If they want to create a different type of bonding that is a different issue.

[Talisker]

people being fired and businesses being shut down for not agreeing is a form of "personal freedom"??

Thank you for making the ONLY salient point of this thread.

[ansel12]

The government wasn’t involved in your marriage, they merely registered it as legal, or illegal.

You must have decided that you wanted it in the “legal” column.

[kidd]

there is no justifiable reason for preventing consenting adults from engaging in loving relationships, regardless of whether or not those relationships are considered to be in line with Christian morality

No one is suggesting that homosexuals stop doing what they do. That is between them and God.

However, when homosexuals seek government backing of the mockery of a long-held religious sacrament, then I have a problem.

Again activists are not just seeking equal rights or benefits, they are seeking to re-label the sacrament. It is the same as homosexuals smearing each other with excrement and forcing the rest of us to call it "Baptism"

The author is a populist moron.

[ansel12]

This dishonest writer, is actually a libertarian writer, not a conservative.

You can read his libertarian claptrap against conservatism, in Reason magazine.

[TexasCajun]

"Hi, I'm Justin Haskins and I'm a Colin Powell Conservative!"

[Mad Dawg]

Good call.

I think he's not really a conservative but rather a Libertarian. The taxonomy can be confusing.

I think Libertarianism ends up being as incoherent as a lot of liberal/progressive thought is. “Freedom” when indistinguishable from things like “whim” and “choice” cannot support the burden of being a political principle. It is as weak as “Diversity,” “Tolerance,” and even “Right to Privacy.”

There's the matter of Prudence. If, to gratify our whims. we put our children in debt, they will not be able to enjoy the liberty so valued by Libertarians. Similarly, if we don't provide good, supportive families for our children, their children will pay.

And I think we can at least conjecture that mix and match sexual and domestic partnering, without sacrificial service for one another and for children ends up implying state-provided caregivers for the old and frail. That's not a good outcome.

The free citizen is under an obligation to consider his own freedom. To put it another way, if our choices will trash out ability to choose, are they choices of freedom or of what? Can someone be a Libertarian if he chooses against the liberty of his parents or progeny?

Despite disagreements, I think humans are oriented toward the QUESTION of justice, and justice is OF the essence of government. So I don't think it is sufficient to try to divide life, notably family life, into crisp categories of public and private. Neither experience nor reason (upon reflection) supports the notion that how we have orgasms does not affect life beyond the place and time of those orgasms.

So, I don't think this kind of Libertarianism can stand up to the task of government.

[demshateGod]

I’m too busy to read some idiot’s twisted logic. Maybe they should start with a dictionary. They are neither Christian or conservative.

[tophat9000]

It seems to me the heroes of the modern conservative movement— individuals such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams— radically transformed the way the world had always understood how society should be organized.

This person is highly highly confused, from his logic in the above paragraph then ANY radical change is legitimate

...If you read the Declaration of Independence the premise set was this------"we hold these truths self evident"...in the first draft the original wording was "we hold these truths sacred"....so what is self-evident truth why was it interchangeable with sacred

This was the time of the ideas of "common sense" "age of reason","natural law"..these men contended they were claiming their right under natural law...under reason ...under logic....

But by the the same extension they also acknowledged they were under the rule of logic and reason and natural law..and also any government formed by man was subservients to that natural law...<>They were not radicals anarchist rebelling against law...they were the opposite ...they thought there was an inherent natural laws and they were bound to obey and acknowledge

this is the difference between a libertarian and an Antichrist...a libertarian thinks the government's is restricted by natural law and Antichrist thinks there should be no law natural or otherwise restricting there wants

So in to this mix you toss in gay marriage..where's the self evident truth .. where's the logic... what is the natural law tell you ....its tells your saying 2 +2= 5 its tells you you're being irrational illogical it tells you you're not being libertarian being an anarchist

[tophat9000]

It seems to me the heroes of the modern conservative movement— individuals such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams— radically transformed the way the world had always understood how society should be organized.

This person is highly highly confused, from his logic in the above paragraph then ANY radical change is legitimate

...If you read the Declaration of Independence the premise set with this------"we hold these truths self evident"...in the first draft the original wording was "we hold these truths sacred"

This was the time of the ideas of "common sense" "age of reason","natural law"..these men contended they were claiming their right under natural law...under reason ...under logic....

But by the the same extension they were also under the rule of logic and reason and natural law..and also any government by men was subservients to that natural law...<>They were not radicals anarchist rebelling against law...they were the opposite ...they thought there was an inherent natural laws and they were bound to obey and acknowledge

this is the difference between a libertarian and an Antichrist...a libertarian thinks the government's is restricted by natural law and Antichrist thinks there should be no law natural or otherwise restricting there wants

So in to this mix you toss in gay marriage..where's the self evident truth .. where's the logic... what is the natural law tell you ....its tells your saying 2 +2= 5 its tells you you're being irrational illogical it tells you you're not being a libertarian ...your being an anarchist

[CSM]

OK Justin, you have shown your complete lack of logic throughout the entire screed. Your premises are very, very flawed. You start with the assumption that the Fed Gov is involved in marriage and then you sink from there.

Oh, and you also called Huckster a Tea Partier.....

[bjorn14]

If in fact Mr. Haskins is a Christian then he has thrown away the key that will set the captives free by letting them permanemtly live in their abomination. I just hope he reads Rom. 1:31-32

[CSM]

“Next Up: I’m a conservative and I support abortion, LGBT, illegal amnesty, Obamacare, and putting the Tea Party in FEMA camps.”

Sounds pretty close to Jeb!

[Carthego delenda est]

Good post. “So in to this mix you toss in gay marriage..where’s the self evident truth .. where’s the logic... what is the natural law tell you ....”

Logic tells us that the plumbing these guys are using for deviant behavior doesn’t fit, and has NOTHING to do with marriage. Freedom says that if these sorts want to pretend, act out in demonic behavior by shoving things up their butts, that they are free to do such. Heck, if they want to give birth to a turd, dress that turd up in little children’s clothing and push it around the mall in a baby stroller, in this country they are free to do such. What they cannot do, what defies all logic, is calling such behavior “marriage”.

[vpintheak]

This is equivilant to “I’m smart, therefore I am dumber than dog crap”

[Drawsing]

I am a flaming left-wing liberal and I am pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun rights, anti-big government, and will vote for Ted Cruz if he is on the ballot.

I am also the world’s tallest short guy, the world’s fattest skinny guy. and the world’s smartest dumb guy. Oh... and the world’s most honest liar.

[Mad Dawg]

Well said.

[SunkenCiv]

Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance

...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.

[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]

• Rand Paul's excuse for avoiding the 'religious freedom' law controversy doesn't add up
• Why Won't Rand Paul and Chris Christie Take a Position on Indiana's "Religious Freedom" Law?
• Heartache: It's over, Rand Paul lost
• Sam Youngman: A critical look at Rand Paul and 'winnability'
• Rand Paul's Big, Risky Bet on Youth
• Rand Paul: Christie Win Shows GOP Has Room for Moderates
• Rand Paul: Republicans Need to Soften on Social Issues

[SunkenCiv]

He's also serves on the "Christians Against Christ" committee, and the "Conservative Republicans In Favor of Gun Confiscation" caucus. /s