Posted on 10/09/2014 6:59:50 PM PDT by Newsprint_Core
The GOP has given up:
Scott Walker: Gay Marriage Fight Is ‘Over In Wisconsin’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/3212179/posts
I'm selfish. I want my country back and I want my word back. The homosexuals have ruined so much but I'll not knuckle under to their corruption of a perfectly fine word.
WINNING!
If the GOP gives up (and they probably will, as they’ve given up on just about every issue that ever once drew me to them, other than 2nd Amendment rights) all I can say is ... adios!
I’ll find a new Party that reflects my values.
Heck, I already said today I’d even be willing to support an independent run by Huckabee in 2016 if the GOP runs another RINO nominee who won’t stand firm on this issue.... and I HATE Huckabee! I don’t even trust him! But by damn, I’ll give him my vote.
It’s over. we lost.
Do you think state leaders should continue to fight gay marriage in NC?
Your vote was recorded.
News
Yes
64% (210 votes)
No
34% (112 votes)
Don’t know/Don’t care
2% (6 votes)
Total votes: 328
Welcome to FR ?
What people need to understand is that there is no such thing as same sex marriage. You can call something anything you want, but that doesn’t make it so.
To express dissent in this day and age is a small victory over the elite. Let the people speak through the poll.
Also, if this issue is lost forever, then America is dead.
voted
http://www.wwaytv3.com/poll/do-you-think-state-leaders-should-continue-to-fight-gay-marriage-nc
Skeptical of you posting this type of poll as you have just joined us.
Helpful if you fill out your home page so we know more about you.
My local tv station, of course I voted yes earlier in the evening when they first posted this poll.
It isn’t “gay marriage,” it is “same-sex marriage.”
Here’s a piece a wrote on the topic a while back:
“Prop 8: Sorry, LGBTs, Your Orientation Is Irrelevant”
Over the years, the left has become increasingly and deliberately reliant upon logical fallacies to argue their political and social positions. The ad hominem attack is one of their favorites. To a leftist, anyone to their right who dares disagree with any of their social causes is a racist, sexist, or homophobe or the more generic fascist or Nazi (ignoring the inconvenient truth that the Nazis were leftists as Jonah Goldberg proves demonstrably in “Liberal Fascism”).
Another favorite logical fallacy of the left is the straw-man argument. Exploiting this fallacy, they construct a false argument and either defend or attack that false argument. This diverts attention from the true argument and usually enables the left to inject strong emotions into the debate. The intent of the straw-man argument is to avoid debating the true argument and to focus everyone’s attention on another debate that the left believes they can win. The strategy is to win the straw-man argument and by so doing, win the real argument by association.
For several decades the homosexual lobby has been building a straw-man argument in an attempt to redefine traditional marriage. Their straw man shifts the argument from whether the majority has a right to define marriage as Prop 8 has done (“a man and a woman”) to an accusation that such a definition of marriage is unconstitutional because it discriminates against gays by prohibiting “gay marriage.” Their most recent salvo in this campaign and what may prove to be the Tet Offensive of their war, was to take Prop 8 to the United States Supreme Court to be overturned to allow gays and lesbians in California (and, they hope, in every state in the union under judicial fiat) to “marry.”
The homosexual lobby has shifted the argument so subtly that even many ardent defenders of traditional marriage have missed the true debate.
This debate, as all debates, is fought with words. The language controls the perception and the debate. And as in just about every other cultural battle that has been waged by the anti-establishment crowd, we have allowed them to control the language. That must stop.
The issue of Prop 8 is not about heterosexual marriage vs. gay marriage. The debate is over traditional marriage (“a man and a woman”) vs. same-sex marriage.
The counter-argument to the ‘gay marriage’ straw-man argument, while apparently cold and insensitive, is perfectly logical and gets back to the core of the debate. The proper response to this straw-man argument should be:
Sorry, LGBT’s, your sexual orientation is irrelevant.
This counter-argument at first sounds dismissive and hostile, so thoroughly have the advocates of ‘gay marriage’ demonized traditional marriage and those who support traditional marriage. It is not.
Defining marriage as being between a man and a woman (with the other restrictions pertaining to age, bloodline, and barring polygamy), does not discriminate against homosexuals and in fact has nothing to do with homosexuality.
To illustrate my point, I’d like to introduce you to Joe and Jim. Joe and Jim have known each other since grade school. They were best friends all through school in the eastern, rural part of the state. They hunted together before school, helped each other put lift-kits on their four-by-fours and, while they were not the best of athletes, they attended every game their high-school football team played. They were such a unit growing up, that they were known by friends and classmates collectively as J&J.
After graduation, they did not go to college but went right into the steel industry. Each decided in their early twenties that they never wanted to marry a woman and raise a family, that they wanted to go on being best-buds. They soon got an apartment together and have been living together since. They’ve come to the point in their relationship that they’ve decided they may as well be married to each other.
Oh, Joe and Jim are also great wingmen for each other. When they go out on Friday and Saturday night and try to pick up dates, they help each other in that endeavor. And both are quite a hit with the ladies. You see, Joe and Jim are heterosexual.
They would like to marry each other, but they can’t. And their not being allowed to marry each other has nothing to do with their being heterosexual. They can’t marry each other because they are both men. Their sexual orientation is irrelevant to the legislative and traditional restriction on their marrying one another.
While the traditional definition of marriage does prohibit Joe and Jim from marrying each other, it does not prohibit them from marriage (which is between a man and a woman). Joe and Jim are free to marry any eligible and consenting woman. Thus, they are not being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. They are being restricted because their relationship does not fit the definition of marriage.
Now it is obvious that those who have the greatest interest in seeing the traditional definition of marriage expanded to include same-sex marriage are those who are involved in homosexual relationships. In addition to being ‘best-buds,’ society can safely assume there is also a sexual and romantic element to these relationships. Unfortunate for their desire to marry each other, this sexual element and their sexual orientation is irrelevant to their being prohibited from marrying each other.
Traditional marriage laws do not prohibit two men (or women) involved in a homosexual relationship from getting married, they only prohibit them from marrying each other. Two homosexual men, for example, are free to marry from the same field of eligible contenders that Joe and Jim can choose from. They just can’t marry each other. And as it is with Joe and Jim, it has nothing to do with their sexual orientation. It has to do with the fact that they are both men. Thus, they are not being discriminated against because they are gay.
To be fair, the tax code should be updated so that no one receives a tax break because they are married. Even those who support traditional marriage and understand that those tax breaks for families are sound and fair because families spend a lot of their income raising the next generation of tax-payers and thus they are not really tax breaks but an offsetting of revenue to the next generation. We should remove those tax breaks not so much out of sympathy or support for homosexuals but simply to take that argument away from the.
For other legal partnerships such as wills and estate-planning, legal agreements, power-of-attorney and living wills, homosexual couples should and do have available the ability to set contracts with one another. In regard to the relationship between a couple and the state, this should be all that matters.
The only way the legal definition of marriage could be truly discriminatory based upon sexual orientation is if it were modified to include a restriction such as, “if any person practices homosexuality or admits to being homosexual, they are prohibited from marrying anyone.” But no one is proposing such a ludicrous and discriminatory restriction on marriage.
While it is clear based upon this argument that defenders of traditional marriage are not prohibiting homosexuals from marrying, we may want to take our argument one step further by pointing out that homosexuals who want to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage are not asking for “equal” rights (because they already have the same, equal rights as heterosexuals) but are in fact demanding special privileges.
Contrary to the straw-man argument that the traditional definition of marriage as protected by Prop 8 is trying to throw a party with a sign hung outside that reads “no gays allowed,” the traditional definition of marriage serves no less important and sober a purpose than to ensure the creation of the next generation and the best means (as demonstrated by 5000 years of traditional marriage) of passing on to that generation the culture and values of a people.
Nothing is stopping homosexuals from partaking in this honorable and laudable role in civilization. However, to do so within the confines of legal marriage will require some personal sacrifice on behalf of those who may not be as attracted either physically or emotionally to the opposite sex as they are to their own sex. While our culture strives for the “true love forever” greeting-card ideal of love within marriage, heterosexuals often find themselves married to a spouse they are not attracted to and their inclination is too often to abandon the marriage. As anyone who has worked hard to make a marriage survive has learned, sacrifice is the mortar that holds the family fortress together.
FREEP THIS POLL ***PING!*** FRmail me if you want to be added or removed from the Fearless Poll-Freeping Freepers Ping list. (multiple votes using multiple internetz devices are allowed!) And be sure to ping me to any polls that need Freepin', if I miss them. (looks like a medium volume list) (gordongekko909, founder of the pinglist, stays on the list until his ghost signs up for the list)
Welcome to FR. Join in the scrum and don’t be a “post and run” poster
Yes they should fight just as they should fight homosexual pedophilia, coprophilia, a dozen homosexual diseases, and all the rest that goes with these mentally diseased creatures.
Well said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.