[Maelstorm]

Robert really does an excellent job of breaking down exactly how the LGBT activists have stacked the deck and ways that the traditional marriage movement can improve its standing in the fight.

[dfwgator]

The gays have taken control of the media and entertainment, which frankly has a huge role in forming people’s opinions on the issues of the day.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

[Alberta's Child]

I'm still not sure I'd even describe this as a "fight." In my conversations with principled conservatives on this subject, one of the most common attitudes I find is apathy or disinterest. I think there's a general recognition among a lot of these folks that the "fight" over marriage -- from a legal/political standpoint -- was lost decades ago. In fact, the general consensus among some of them is that they really don't care what anyone in a government office thinks about marriage at all.

It seems kind of silly, when you think about it: You've got homosexual activists clamoring for their "right" to be a part of an institution of marriage that has slowly lost favor among an increasing number of heterosexuals over the years.

[Hardastarboard]

Some of these publications are conservative, though I will strive not to burn bridges by naming them here

Please do - these @$$holes need to be punished.

[From The Deer Stand]

There once was a young man from Racine,
Who invented a love-making machine,
Concave or convex,
It would fit either sex,
With attachments for those inbetween.

[taildragger]

I don't mean to hijack this thread but...

This whole subject matter seems superfluous when put in context of what really is ailing this country

A friend and I drove through Cities that were very GM-Chrysler centric yesterday. Stopped at one strip mall complex, it was 1/2 empty.

Drove by many a street that were all industrial parks, as my friend and I noted if we went down these streets our guess 1/2 the businesses were closed, we didn't have to drive down them, we have seen it in other business centric complexes.

Yet the Gun store was smoking busy no pun intended as people ethereally prepare for something their gut tells them is a potential reality....

This whole issue is a colossal waste of time and misplaced energies..

[EternalVigilance]

Marriage is the fundamental societal order that provides the foundation for our economy, our nation, and our posterity. Homosexual behavior is completely disordered, and can only destroy that foundation and everything that is built upon it.

[TArcher]

I never knew the extent of a lobby's power

Uhh Gee Opie, Bob -- you should've been looking closer :

 

"Ohhhhho say can you seee...."

 

Eyes Wide Shut

"8-1984 - Lawrence King [Homosexual and alleged Pedophile] throws a lavish party in Dallas, Texas, after singing the National Anthem at the Republican National GOP Convention."

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=Lawrence+king+singing+pedophile+franklin&oq=Lawrence+king+singing+pedophile+franklin

 

http://www.franklincase.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11&Itemid=9

[TArcher]

"Doug Mainwaring is a gay father in Maryland; he and I jointly signed an amicus brief in support of Proposition 8.......I am, moreover, the only person reared by a same-sex couple who signed an amicus brief in support of Proposition 8. "

1.  It's HOMOSEXUAL not "gay".

2.  Homosexuals are not fathers.

 

Uhuh.   Gee Opie Bob Lopez, what big eyes you have!   And Teeth!  You're proof that even a fiscally "conservative" stopped clock that ooozed out of a rented womb has the correct time twice a day.

Your amicus "support" amounts to nothing more than a weak parasitic attempt to legitimize/normalize the homosexual abomination of nature.

Quack, Waddle - amicus Trojan Wolf.

 

NO SALE

[HomeAtLast]

We support traditional marriage for the simple reason that a child's right to a father and mother is a fundamental consideration recognized by international law.

Don't know where in our Constitution we are bound by considerations in international "law." Our government was instituted to secure God-given rights. If a child has a right to two parents, one male and one female, who provides it?

The author's claim to a solid and secular argument is not upheld by this "simple reason."

And what exactly is meant by a "fundamental consideration?" Or a recognized consideration?

How does it square with the so-called rights of homosexual couples to adopt children -- or for that matter, single individuals?

Stand on basic Judeo-Christian principles, rather than on considerations in international "law" to which no nation is bound anyway.

[supercat]

I wish conservatives would stop being distracted by religious issues surrounding marriage, and recognize that:

1. The concept of heterosexual lifetime-mating pairs raising their young certainly predates religion and government, and may well predate all of humanity as well (such behavior has been observed in many animal species, in contexts where they cannot plausibly be imitating mankind). A family unit containing a man, one or more wives, and their offspring, is a type of social structure which exists and has existed in nearly all human societies throughout history. Such a group is fundamentally different from any possible grouping which does not contain exactly one male and at least one female; recognition of such differences cannot simply be a consequence of religious bigotry, since such recognition predates religion.

2. A mother giving her child up for adoption has the right to refuse any prospective adoptive couple for any reason whatsoever that she sees fit, or instruct proxies to do so on her behalf; that would remain true even if the sole reason for her refusal was a desire to have her child raised by a (female) mother and a (male) father who were married to each other. I doubt those who are really pushing for "gay marriage" would agree with the latter point; I suspect the goal is to forbid "discrimination" with regard to such issues.
3. Individuals, institutions, or companies who wish to voluntarily bestow favors upon married couples have the right to restrict their blessings to those couples they see fit to receive them, or refuse them as they see fit. Such right extends even in cases where the sole reason for refusal is the lack of one male and one female. Again, I doubt those pushing for "gay marriage" would agree, since their goal is to outlaw such "discrimination".

Gay marriage isn't about freedom for gay people; it's about giving them the power to prevent others from voluntarily recognizing historically-styled marriages without accepting their partnership.