I am guessing that what you are now trying to say that for you support of gay marriage is a deal breaker. It is impossible for a conservative to support gay marriage.Correct?
I actually have some sympathy for that point of view, I may have even felt that way at some point, but I have rejected litmus tests as impractical. Instead, I look at the whole of a man, and measure him individually.
Personally, I do not advocate for gay marriage, but I generally accept Dick Cheney as a conservative. So, yes, it appears that it is possible to advocate for some aspect of gay marriage and still be a conservative. Now, advocating for the "homosexual agenda?" I can't image a true conservative who would want to, based on how I define the term. How do you define it?
I can assure you right now that there are people on this website, a majority perhaps, who substitute "amnesty" for "the homosexual agenda" in the point you are trying to make (but who can tell, really). By that logic, Ronald Reagan was not a conservative, right?
No, on that position he was wrong.
That’s a YES - you, presidio9, believe you can be ambivalent to adultery, support the homosexual agenda — and still be conservative.
>>It is impossible for a conservative to support gay marriage.
It is impossible to hold up the abomination of nature as normal and CONSERVE a moral culture.