View Full Version : Leaked: Top Republican pollster tells GOP to support gay marriage or else
DeusExMachina
05-14-2012, 09:44
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/leaked-top-republican-pollster-tells-gop-to-support-gay-marriage-or-else/news/2012/05/12/39456
A leaked memo from a top GOP pollster is telling Republicans that they had better support same-sex marriage or else face the consequences. Jan van Lohuizen, who was George W. Bush’s pollster for the 2004 presidential election, says in a leaked memo that not only is same-sex marriage being embraced by the general public and there’s no stopping it, but that they should support same-sex marriage equality because it is a conservative ideal:
"As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government."
Andrew Sullivan writes:
"The last paragraph [above] is, to my mind, the most remarkable. It’s advising Republican candidates to emphasize the conservative nature of gay marriage, to say how it encourages personal responsibility, commitment, stability and family values. It uses Dick Cheney’s formula (which was for a couple of years, the motto of this blog) that “freedom means freedom for everyone.” And it uses David Cameron’s argument that you can be for gay marriage because you are a conservative.
And the walls came tumbling down."
Regular readers may remember the name Jan van Lohuizen, who, along with another top Obama pollster last July, as The New Civil Rights Movement then reported, released a report showing a clear and rapid bipartisan acceleration in public support for same-sex marriage equality across almost all demographics, including Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, suggesting that politicians should feel more comfortable supporting equality in the institution of marriage, and supporting the repeal of DOMA.
Sullivan, who doesn’t note the connection to last year’s report, notes:
"Read the bluntness of this. This is the GOP establishment talking to itself. And the Republican pollster who arguably knows more about the politics of the gay issue than anyone else (how else to explain the Ohio campaign of 2004?) is advising them in no uncertain terms that they need to evolve and fast, if they’re not going to damage their brand for an entire generation."
Frankly, while this is extremely exciting, it differs little from what Jan van Lohuizen (of Voter Consumer Research,) and his partner on last summer’s report — which was sponsored by Evan Wolfson, founder of Freedom To Marry – Joel Benenson of Benenson Strategy Group, said.
The leaked van Lohuizen memo states in full:
"In view of this week’s news on the same sex marriage issue, here is a summary of recent survey findings on same sex marriage:
1. Support for same sex marriage has been growing and in the last few years support has grown at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down. A review of public polling shows that up to 2009 support for gay marriage increased at a rate of 1% a year. Starting in 2010 the change in the level of support accelerated to 5% a year. The most recent public polling shows supporters of gay marriage outnumber opponents by a margin of roughly 10% (for instance: NBC / WSJ poll in February / March: support 49%, oppose 40%).
2. The increase in support is taking place among all partisan groups. While more Democrats support gay marriage than Republicans, support levels among Republicans are increasing over time. The same is true of age: younger people support same sex marriage more often than older people, but the trends show that all age groups are rethinking their position.
3. Polling conducted among Republicans show that majorities of Republicans and Republican leaning voters support extending basic legal protections to gays and lesbians. These include majority Republican support for:
a. Protecting gays and lesbians against being fired for reasons of sexual orientation
b. Protections against bullying and harassment
c. Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
d. Right to visit partners in hospitals
e. Protecting partners against loss of home in case of severe medical emergencies or death
f. Legal protection in some form for gay couples whether it be same sex marriage or domestic partnership (only 29% of Republicans oppose legal recognition in any form).
Recommendation: A statement reflecting recent developments on this issue along the following lines:
“People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to gay and lesbian couples; gay and lesbian couples should not face discrimination and their relationship should be protected under the law. People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits.”
Other thoughts / Q&A: Follow up to questions about affirmative action:
“This is not about giving anyone extra protections or privileges, this is about making sure that everyone – regardless of sexual orientation – is provided the same protections against discrimination that you and I enjoy.”
Why public attitudes might be changing:
“As more people have become aware of friends and family members who are gay, attitudes have begun to shift at an accelerated pace. This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.”
Conservative fundamentals:
“As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government."
[Pop]
Bolded portion mine. There's not enough of this sentiment going around today.
CN: Gay marriage can be considered a conservative ideal: stability, commitment, and freedom. Gay marriage is becoming a mainstream ideal and the longer the GOP fights it, the more the party will suffer.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-14-2012, 13:17
Did Jan van Lohuizen's boy friend leak it?
If you think gay marriage is a conservative value, there is not much I can do to help you. It is not about small govt, it is about getting govt to dictate 'morality' and then take down any organized religion who doesn't toe the line- a win/win for lefties. Great small govt. That is why gay marriage is sold as civil rights. Just as the Klan fought civil rights, they are trying to fit the Catholic church with white robs and pointy hats. Either become the new Klan or change your position on gay marriage- and if you change your position on that what else is left to abandon?
Will someone just riddle me how it is that we have to defend the status quo when the gays seem to have the inside track? Thousands of years of civilization and how did gay marriage become the default condition that we have to defeat? When did the gay position becomes the one that has to be proved false?
THis LGBTPPP agenda is such crap.
It is not about small govt, it is about getting govt to dictate 'morality' and then take down any organized religion who doesn't toe the line- a win/win for lefties.
I hope I'm just reading your statement wrong but you really think this is about gay people leveraging the government to destroy your church? And it's a bit hypocritical to say you don't want government to dictate morality...unless it's the version of morality you support. I think the thing conservatives like you miss is that those of us that do support it don't support universal anti-discrimination against it. In hand I also think a small government should get out of the business all together. If your church thinks it's sinful and doesn't want to do marriages of same sex people or recognize them, great that's their business. Same with business, insurance, etc. if your company doesn't recognize that as a marriage then fine, it's not like a million pro gay firms aren't going to pop up all over the place where married gays can have employment and services that do recognize them. You guys need to stop twisting the issue into something it is not.
I've yet to hear someone intelligently articulate the downside of gay marriage. If two men or two women can legally get married, it's not going to have the slightest impact on my 21 year long man/woman marriage.
A number of people sure seem to be rather threatened by the prospect though.
Zundfolge
05-14-2012, 16:29
I hope I'm just reading your statement wrong but you really think this is about gay people leveraging the government to destroy your church?
This is the concern of a lot of religious people that believe homosexuality is a sin and abnormal.
If gay marriage is legalized then churches can be sued out of existence for refusing to marry gays (or for preaching against homosexuality).
For many, its not about preventing gays from having equal rights, its about preventing the state from being used by gays to force them to change their deeply held beliefs on homosexuality "or else".
If you look at the law suits against churches across the south that refused to perform mixed race weddings, or the photographer in Santa Fe that was sued by a lesbian couple because he wouldn't photograph their wedding you can see the potential for abuse.
This is why I support the whole Civil Union thing ... it gives the gays the same level of rights without giving them the ability to force their beliefs down other people's throats via discrimination laws (and believe me there are plenty of gay organizations that would have no problem outlawing churches and other organizations that disagree with THEM. This idea that the entire gay rights movement is motivated only by their own pure pursuit of equal rights is naive, most gay rights groups hate Christians and churches as much as the media says Christians and churches hate gays).
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-14-2012, 16:41
I hope I'm just reading your statement wrong but you really think this is about gay people leveraging the government to destroy your church? .
Nope, your reading skills are intact. Not every Glee fan out there is out to kill off the church, but it is a tool being used for that task. If you don't see that the gay agenda is a direct attack on organized religion, I can't help you with your lack of political situational awareness.
And it's a bit hypocritical to say you don't want government to dictate morality...unless it's the version of morality you support..
How is it dictating? The gays are the ones that want the change, but our leftist media make it out for some reason the onerous is on conservatives to stop the change, rather than on leftists to get the change made. Heck, gay marriage got shot down in California! If it doesn't play in Cali, it ain't going to play in Peoria.
I think the thing conservatives like you miss is that those of us that do support it don't support universal anti-discrimination against it. In hand I also think a small government should get out of the business all together. If your church thinks it's sinful and doesn't want to do marriages of same sex people or recognize them, great that's their business. Same with business, insurance, etc. if your company doesn't recognize that as a marriage then fine, it's not like a million pro gay firms aren't going to pop up all over the place where married gays can have employment and services that do recognize them. You guys need to stop twisting the issue into something it is not.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You get this passed and that gay agenda will get rammed down your throat. Isn't it funny that they only talk about talk about gay, when it really is a LGBTPPP.
Who could be against lesbians? I guess we have to throw gays in to be fair, but what is this now- the fence sitting Bi's and now the transexuals. If the gay marriage passes, there is no arguement you can make that will stop polygamy MM, FF, FM, MFF- what's the difference? Once you are there prostitution is just a short term marriage- after all 'marriage' is just a contract- no stipulation that you have to buy and not rent. That's when the NAMBLA van rolls up.
Go ahead and flame me. Everyone laughed at Santorum when he talked about the bedroom sex case in TX being used to push gay marriage.
Even if you are a conservative and you accept all this, and frankly you are hiding in the Liberterian closet, it isn't that these things are allowed, I really don't care- it is once it is 'legal' is now morality in the left eyes. Maybe it is the price to be paid because for so long we made immoral things illegal. When the left unlinked morallity and legality, and now with the pesky religious morality banned from public discourse, they pivoted are now make the lower standards of legality the new morality- unencumbered by church-state legality. Don't toe the left's new morality line and no federal funds for you and all kinds of 'civil rights' investigations. The federal funds is really the interesting part. The govt is bribing us with our own money and even with our kids money they haven't even earned yet.
If gay marriage is legalized then churches can be sued out of existence for refusing to marry gays (or for preaching against homosexuality).
Uhhhh. No they can't. Please don't spread around crap like this.
Its particularly wrong since if you accept gay marriage you take away the whole LGBT protected class argument (which was on microscopically thin thread to begin with - as it relates to the church free association argument above).
If you want to have a legal debate on the topic we can take it to another board - where this has been discussed by more SCOTUS quoted constitutional scholars than you can possibly imagine.
If you don't see that the gay agenda is a direct attack on organized religion, I can't help you with your lack of political situational awareness.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You get this passed and that gay agenda will get rammed down your throat. Isn't it funny that they only talk about talk about gay, when it really is a LGBTPPP.
I love it when people say "Gay Agenda" - like they all have meetings. Which, in fact they do, but they are about what everyone is going to wear not burning down the churches.
What you are failing to grasp is that equality means equality for everyone. Cut and dried there is no grey area to choose from. You are either for equal rights for everyone or you are for certain 'classes' being favored.
If the gay marriage passes, there is no arguement you can make that will stop polygamy MM, FF, FM, MFF- what's the difference? Once you are there prostitution is just a short term marriage- after all 'marriage' is just a contract- no stipulation that you have to buy and not rent. That's when the NAMBLA van rolls up.
Prostitution should be legal and so should polygamy. Hell any type of relationship between cognizant consenting adults should be legal - its none of the governments business.
Its about damn time that all the stupid morality laws were put down - would do a hell of a lot of good in this country.
Government should have nothing at all to do with marriage, either in a positive or negative manner. The only legitimate business of government is the protection of the rights of the sovereign individuals who CONSENT to be governed - at least that's what our country's founding document claims. If my actions do not harm another person against his/her will, they are not the proper subject of any government action.
Nope, your reading skills are intact. Not every Glee fan out there is out to kill off the church, but it is a tool being used for that task. If you don't see that the gay agenda is a direct attack on organized religion, I can't help you with your lack of political situational awareness.
And I with yours if that post is really how you think the world spins.
And it is dictating, to legislate based on your flavor of religion. Like I said in the other thread just you wait until something you find as a right ends up in the minority where others can tell you what you can't do based on a vote. Does that mean it's not a right? No of course not, because like the left you are never wrong right? And everyone that doesn't share your views can fuck off and don't deserve liberty right? Doesn't matter anyway since the majority of our party is made up of bible thumping, hoverround riding, white hairs that share your mindset. Just like the memo said, we have to endorse true liberty otherwise the right is doomed for a while.
Great-Kazoo
05-14-2012, 20:23
Which ever side of the fence you sit one with this issue, i find it obscene the .gov/ dems / leftist care more about a persons right that is not (at this time in the constitution) than they do about actual amendments RE: 2A
Do the same sexers have an agenda, maybe. The real reason this is an issue is the left / dems see the "CONSERVATIVES don't care about women" did not gain any momentum. Hence another hot button issues, same sex marriage, which to show America the right doesn't care about them.
BPTactical
05-14-2012, 20:29
^^^^ What Jim said.
Gas is 3.75 a gallon, real unemployment numbers are in the 16% range if not more, Trillions in debt, DOJ openly violating the laws of the country, illegal immigration and gang violence off the hook and what are they worried about?
If Futt and Buck can be hubby and hubby.....
Pathetic.
Fire the whole stinkin lot.
TEAMRICO
05-14-2012, 20:38
Uhhhh. No they can't. Please don't spread around crap like this.
Its particularly wrong since if you accept gay marriage you take away the whole LGBT protected class argument (which was on microscopically thin thread to begin with - as it relates to the church free association argument above).
If you want to have a legal debate on the topic we can take it to another board - where this has been discussed by more SCOTUS quoted constitutional scholars than you can possibly imagine.
Wow...a whole 77 posts and he comes in with the tough talk.
Why don't you take it to another board?
Somebody does not want any friends......
Wow...a whole 77 posts and he comes in with the tough talk.
Why don't you take it to another board?
Somebody does not want any friends......
*sigh*.. you miss the 700 or so before the crash.
But beside that my original statements are valid. This isn't the place to discus the legality of whether allowing same sex marriage would result in the widespread practice of litigation against churches that wont participate in solemnization of same sex marriages.
The Legislation and Politics forum isn't the place to discuss the legality of same sex marriage?
cohunter39
05-14-2012, 21:41
^^^^ What Jim said.
Gas is 3.75 a gallon, real unemployment numbers are in the 16% range if not more, Trillions in debt, DOJ openly violating the laws of the country, illegal immigration and gang violence off the hook and what are they worried about?
If Futt and Buck can be hubby and hubby.....
Pathetic.
Fire the whole stinkin lot.
^ what they said
The Legislation and Politics forum isn't the place to discuss the legality of same sex marriage?
I meant more that it was a gun board not a politics board. But I'm game if the mods don't mind.
I'll go first. The original argument that I was harping about here is:
If gay marriage is legalized then churches can be sued out of existence for refusing to marry gays (or for preaching against homosexuality).
By that same logic a Catholic parishioner could attempt to have an Orthodox rabbi perform a wedding between himself and his Buddhist wife. If the Orthodox rabbi declined and did so for religious reasons he could face civil actions.
However this is not the case. It has been held by every federal court, including the SCOTUS, that ministers/rabbis/clergy/etc have a 'ministerial exception' to discrimination laws.
To make it even more fun, the Obama administration fought against that exception in the latest version of the test. The Obama Justice Department, took the position that there should be no exemption to the application of laws for ministerial employees at all.
The particular saber rattling in the original quote above was a darling of the the "Yes on 8" crowd in California. It was time and time again put down as poor rhetoric by everyone, including the California attorney general. It would be a blatant violation of the church's 1st Amendment Rights (not to mention the whole grey separation of church and state). The state cant compel a religious organization to suspend their religious beliefs for another.
Now at the crux of the (faulty) logic is the strange reasoning that if you take away a groups protected class status that they will now some how qualify to have special protections. It doesn't work that way. Right now it would be easier (easier, I never said it would work) to litigate a minister/rabbi who refuses to perform a 'gay marriage' since the whole LGBT group is a federally (and in most states) protected 'class'. If the state recognizes 'gay marriage' then they (the state) is tacitly saying this group is now the same as everyone else, and in essence the LGBT 'class' would loose any protections afforded them for being different (in this case).
Feel free to discuss...
P.S. Thanks for the new rank whatever it is. ;)
Want to clarify that the rights of the people are not bestowed on to them by the constitution but rather the constitution is a "charter of negative rights" bestowed onto the government.
Now that that's out of the way. I don't think any "conservative" can make a legitimate argument against gay marriage that doesn't include the bible... The last time I checked, our government isn't a theocracy.
Every other argument against gay marriage is based on what they believe to be righteous, but they seem to forgot the premise that two guys or two women getting married absolutely affects their "righteousness" in no way, shape, or form. They're just projecting their beliefs onto someone else and think that government should intrude based on their beliefs.
losttrail
05-15-2012, 05:01
Want to clarify that the rights of the people are not bestowed on to them by the constitution but rather the constitution is a "charter of negative rights" bestowed onto the government.
Now that that's out of the way. I don't think any "conservative" can make a legitimate argument against gay marriage that doesn't include the bible... The last time I checked, our government isn't a theocracy.
Every other argument against gay marriage is based on what they believe to be righteous, but they seem to forgot the premise that two guys or two women getting married absolutely affects their "righteousness" in no way, shape, or form. They're just projecting their beliefs onto someone else and think that government should intrude based on their beliefs.
By that "logic", I guess none of us should be 'projecting' our beliefs of gun ownership, private property, right to self-defense? Evidently we should not 'project' our beliefs that children should not be raped or sexually exploited because there are people that think those actions are perfectly fine?
Your "logic" would seem to say that none of us should 'project' out beliefs that NAMBLA is wrong.
Apparently I should not 'project' my beliefs that rape, murder, incest, child pornography, date rape, robbery, mugging, drive-by shootings, vandalism, gang viloence, drug use, under age drinking, driving while intoxicated, et al, are wrong?
The left is always pushing the envelope.
Once gay marriage is accepted, what's next? Does anyone really believe that the leftist mode of operation of 'incrementalism' will stop?
In my belief, I do NOT have to tollerate everything.
Many of us believe the Bible is the word of God and that God is (gasp) an authority above and beyond government. However, there are some that beileve there is no higher power than government and government has ultimate control of every aspect of human life. Marxist-Muslim Obama appears to be one of these.
If we do not set limits of what is acceptable and not acceptable, we have anarchy, mob rules.
What is wrong with having a belief system that sets limits on acceptable/non-acceptable behavior?
Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve.
Great-Kazoo
05-15-2012, 05:24
By that "logic", I guess none of us should be 'projecting' our beliefs of gun ownership, private property, right to self-defense? Evidently we should not 'project' our beliefs that children should not be raped or sexually exploited because there are people that think those actions are perfectly fine?
Your "logic" would seem to say that none of us should 'project' out beliefs that NAMBLA is wrong.
Apparently I should not 'project' my beliefs that rape, murder, incest, child pornography, date rape, robbery, mugging, drive-by shootings, vandalism, gang viloence, drug use, under age drinking, driving while intoxicated, et al, are wrong?
The left is always pushing the envelope.
Once gay marriage is accepted, what's next? Does anyone really believe that the leftist mode of operation of 'incrementalism' will stop?
In my belief, I do NOT have to tollerate everything.
Unfortunately This.
http://news.yahoo.com/shift-marriage-energizes-immigration-activists-070638614.html
We as a society are more concerned about who lives, sleeps or wants ins benefits for who ever, Than we are with the .gov in general. I have yet to be in a place where a same sex person has tried to "convert" me to their lifestyle. To the extreme you have the anti gun / 2A person who will do anything if it means a complete ban on firearms. Which should we be more afraid of, someone who cares for another person or the VPC crowd?
If you think or feel choice 1, hey thats your "right"
losttrail
05-15-2012, 05:46
Unfortunately This.
http://news.yahoo.com/shift-marriage-energizes-immigration-activists-070638614.html
We as a society are more concerned about who lives, sleeps or wants ins benefits for who ever, Than we are with the .gov in general. I have yet to be in a place where a same sex person has tried to "convert" me to their lifestyle. To the extreme you have the anti gun / 2A person who will do anything if it means a complete ban on firearms. Which should we be more afraid of, someone who cares for another person or the VPC crowd?
If you think or feel choice 1, hey thats your "right"
That article proves the point that gay amrriage is NOT an isolated cause.
Nothing the left does is a single, isolated event. The 'globalist' movement has been extremely effective in interconnecting all their causes to have a cohesive goal of destruction of America and total control.
Now they have Marxist-Muslim Obama, Comrades Pelosi and Reid to accellerate and implement even more of the totalitarian ideals.
HUH!?!?!?
You actually compared gay marriage to murder, rape, etc, etc???? All of which have victims. Its pretty sick that you would think to do that. I fail to see the victim of a two guys who already live together, get a piece of paper that says they're married.
The other comparisons that you use all protect or promote liberty. Gun ownership, private property rights, self defense rights; all of which protect liberty. You dare to compare those ideas to your idea that gays do not have the liberty to marry??
You have a right to an opinion. I'm not saying you have to condone gay marriage, and I'm not even saying that you can't condemn it.
What I'm saying is you have no right to have the government force your values of "acceptable/non-acceptable behavior" if it doesn't affect your liberty or your life.
By that "logic", I guess none of us should be 'projecting' our beliefs of gun ownership, private property, right to self-defense? Evidently we should not 'project' our beliefs that children should not be raped or sexually exploited because there are people that think those actions are perfectly fine?
Your "logic" would seem to say that none of us should 'project' out beliefs that NAMBLA is wrong.
Apparently I should not 'project' my beliefs that rape, murder, incest, child pornography, date rape, robbery, mugging, drive-by shootings, vandalism, gang viloence, drug use, under age drinking, driving while intoxicated, et al, are wrong?
The left is always pushing the envelope.
Once gay marriage is accepted, what's next? Does anyone really believe that the leftist mode of operation of 'incrementalism' will stop?
In my belief, I do NOT have to tollerate everything.
Many of us believe the Bible is the word of God and that God is (gasp) an authority above and beyond government. However, there are some that beileve there is no higher power than government and government has ultimate control of every aspect of human life. Marxist-Muslim Obama appears to be one of these.
If we do not set limits of what is acceptable and not acceptable, we have anarchy, mob rules.
What is wrong with having a belief system that sets limits on acceptable/non-acceptable behavior?
Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve.
losttrail
05-15-2012, 07:39
HUH!?!?!?
You actually compared gay marriage to murder, rape, etc, etc???? All of which have victims. Its pretty sick that you would think to do that. I fail to see the victim of a two guys who already live together, get a piece of paper that says they're married.
The other comparisons that you use all protect or promote liberty. Gun ownership, private property rights, self defense rights; all of which protect liberty. You dare to compare those ideas to your idea that gays do not have the liberty to marry??
You have a right to an opinion. I'm not saying you have to condone gay marriage, and I'm not even saying that you can't condemn it.
What I'm saying is you have no right to have the government force your values of "acceptable/non-acceptable behavior" if it doesn't affect your liberty or your life.
You're missing the point.
I'm not equating gay marriage to rape, murder, etc.
I'm equating the 'logic' of not projecting ones values/beliefs onto another segment of society.
The gay community is a minority as are pedophiles.
If we as society are not supposed to 'project' our values/beliefs on the gay community, then why should we be able to 'project' our values/beliefs on pedophiles?
What I'm saying is you have no right to have the government force your values of "acceptable/non-acceptable behavior" if it doesn't affect your liberty or your life.
Then wouldn't this work conversely that the gay community has no right to have the government force their values of "acceptable/non-acceptable behavior" on the rest of society?
Additionally, there are certain elements of the gay lifestyle that increase the risks of certain diseases that, especially under Obamacare, will adversely affect the cost of healthcare for EVERYONE.
Great-Kazoo
05-15-2012, 07:59
You're missing the point.
I'm not equating gay marriage to rape, murder, etc.
I'm equating the 'logic' of not projecting ones values/beliefs onto another segment of society.
The gay community is a minority as are pedophiles.
If we as society are not supposed to 'project' our values/beliefs on the gay community, then why should we be able to 'project' our values/beliefs on pedophiles?
Then wouldn't this work conversely that the gay community has no right to have the government force their values of "acceptable/non-acceptable behavior" on the rest of society?
Additionally, there are certain elements of the gay lifestyle that increase the risks of certain diseases that, especially under Obamacare, will adversely affect the cost of healthcare for EVERYONE.
You need to remember the dems / liberals fell the same about gun owners and react the same way.
Again, don't like same sex marriage don't vote for those people.
If the dems got off ILLEGAL Immigration, Guns , Entitlements, NEA/Union Strong arm tactics, PC to to extreme they would probably have full control of the .gov.
The right/GOP is so hell bent on opposing anything Gay they are shooting themselves in the foot. ESPECIALLY when some of the biggest opponents to gays have been caught in compromising positions.
OT somewhat: So get ready for more controversy
The Church is against birth control YET has remained for decades silent (until the media ran with it) regarding sexual abuse within the church.
Justify their stance on same sex relations while doing something (IMHO) heinous to young boys.
Want to get married NFW. Want a quick go at the new alter boy? Sure.
Wow...a whole 77 posts and he comes in with the tough talk.
Why don't you take it to another board?
Somebody does not want any friends......
[LOL] seriously?
*sigh*.. you miss the 700 or so before the crash.
i sigh with you asmotao [Beer] maybe a face palm or two too
The gay community is a minority as are pedophiles.
As are many other groups, and AGAIN FOR THOSE NOT LISTENING, forcing something on people that restrains their liberty doesn't gain legitimacy through majority vote. Which brings me to my next point...
If we as society are not supposed to 'project' our values/beliefs on the gay community, then why should we be able to 'project' our values/beliefs on pedophiles?
Because they are harming a minor that cannot enter into a contract? Did you read the post above yours?
Additionally, there are certain elements of the gay lifestyle that increase the risks of certain diseases that, especially under Obamacare, will adversely affect the cost of healthcare for EVERYONE.
And there are certain elements of the hetero lifestyle that will increase the cost of that shitty healthcare too, 9 months of doctors visits and the birth of a kid aren't exactly cheap. But they are in the minority so they get to pay into that and tough shit deal with it right?
DeusExMachina
05-15-2012, 10:09
I think all intelligent humans can agree that something two consenting adults do is in no way the same as something a minor and an adult, or an adult and another unconsenting adult, do.
Excuse me, but why the hell is the Federal Government(still) legislating the relationships of consenting adults? According to the preamble to the Constitution the duties of the US government are as follows:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
Now, granted, the preamble is not intended to either enumerate nor limit the powers granted to the Feds, but seriously, should they be more concerned about protecting our borders from the rampant invasion that has occurred over the last 75 years or so?
The ONLY aspect of marriage the government at any level should be concerned with is the legal. Property, custody, inheritance, etc. Morality should never enter into the equation. Marriage should be a voluntary union entered into under one's belief system, separate from the ramifications of a legal union, IMHO.
Flame suit on.
Excuse me, but why the hell is the Federal Government(still) legislating the relationships of consenting adults? According to the preamble to the Constitution the duties of the US government are as follows:
Now, granted, the preamble is not intended to either enumerate nor limit the powers granted to the Feds, but seriously, should they be more concerned about protecting our borders from the rampant invasion that has occurred over the last 75 years or so?
The ONLY aspect of marriage the government at any level should be concerned with is the legal. Property, custody, inheritance, etc. Morality should never enter into the equation. Marriage should be a voluntary union entered into under one's belief system, separate from the ramifications of a legal union, IMHO.
Flame suit on.
[Beer] this is the truth.
Wow...a whole 77 posts and he comes in with the tough talk.
To quote Ed Norton/Tyler Durden: "You are not your fucking post count."
Once gay marriage is accepted, what's next?
Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve.
Ugh, gag me, please... I'm so sick and tired of this gateway thought process... it's not the story of 'if you give a mouse a cookie.' Why do people insist this line of thinking is logical and rational? "If you allow gay marriage what's next? Animal marriage!?" Um no... Congrats though, you've successfully made yourself look like a complete christian-conservative, closed minded, bigoted, moron (I never said you were a moron, don't twist that, I just said you made yourself LOOK that way). That whole 'Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve' BS is tired and flawed. If God is the absolute truth, and he is never wrong, then why did he create sociopaths? Why did he allow for the human mind to be so capable of horrible atrocities like the Holocaust or the Rape of Nanking? It makes me sick that one side says "this is the way God intends and those who go against that are immoral and wrong," funny, because I remember in history class that same thinking got a lot of people killed. Of course we don't do that now, but there still is a lot of closed-mindedness that states "if you don't believe what I believe you're wrong and you're going to hell." I thought this was America, I didn't think we dealt with such moral absolutes like that considering this nation was founded by folks trying to escape the very same religious and moral absolutes many in this country propagate today.
You have a right to an opinion. I'm not saying you have to condone gay marriage, and I'm not even saying that you can't condemn it.
What I'm saying is you have no right to have the government force your values of "acceptable/non-acceptable behavior" if it doesn't affect your liberty or your life.
Well said! [Beer]
68Charger
05-15-2012, 12:02
^^^^ What Jim said.
Gas is 3.75 a gallon, real unemployment numbers are in the 16% range if not more, Trillions in debt, DOJ openly violating the laws of the country, illegal immigration and gang violence off the hook and what are they worried about?
If Futt and Buck can be hubby and hubby.....
Pathetic.
Fire the whole stinkin lot.
I think Bert found the key here- if you can't (won't) actually FIX anything, then just distract with a bovine scat issue to get everyone to fight about...
The Feds have no business in this issue, it belongs at the states.
I'm fine with putting it on the ballot, just don't sneak it in without voter approval.
The word "marriage" should never have been used when describing the license the government forces a couple to buy. It should have been called a civil union for everyone in the first place.
I think the word "marriage" should have been reserved for the church ceremony only. If a homosexual couple couldn't find a church to marry them then they could start their own church.
You're missing the point.
I'm not equating gay marriage to rape, murder, etc.
I'm equating the 'logic' of not projecting ones values/beliefs onto another segment of society.
The gay community is a minority as are pedophiles.
If we as society are not supposed to 'project' our values/beliefs on the gay community, then why should we be able to 'project' our values/beliefs on pedophiles?
Then wouldn't this work conversely that the gay community has no right to have the government force their values of "acceptable/non-acceptable behavior" on the rest of society?
Additionally, there are certain elements of the gay lifestyle that increase the risks of certain diseases that, especially under Obamacare, will adversely affect the cost of healthcare for EVERYONE.
No, you are comparing gay marriage to rape, murder, etc. Your saying rape and murder fall into the same category of "values" that gay marriage falls into. I don't think murder/rape are a "value". They are a crime committed against another individual human being.
There is no victim of gay marriage. End of story.
SA Friday
05-15-2012, 18:14
No, you are comparing gay marriage to rape, murder, etc. Your saying rape and murder fall into the same category of "values" that gay marriage falls into. I don't think murder/rape are a "value". They are a crime committed against another individual human being.
There is no victim of gay marriage. End of story.
1100-1200 years ago, this want the case. Rape and murder of other people in other lands during conquest were common place and a major selling point in putting together conquesting armies. Completely ethical, then.
250 years ago, buying and selling people based on the color of their skin was acceptable and considered not only ethical but a pillar of southern economy until the 1860s in his country.
There are literally thousands of major and minor changes in the ethics of governments, religions, and societies just like this.
This is so far from a main issue now or even in the big giant scheme of life, it's not even funny. BUT, it sures the hell could effect the election and the Dem's know it. people in general are sheep. The dems are looking for a hot button issue to stem the bleeding and turn votes. Pick your battles wisely. This is simply not worth fighting for in the political atmosphere. if the republicans are smart, they will say hell yes to this and counterattack with real issues.
losttrail
05-15-2012, 21:14
Ok, I belive homosexuality is wrong.
I do not have all the answers to what God's plan is. I do believe that He allows us to have free will and that Satan also has power over us.
Is homosexuality one of Satan's tools? I don't know.
Civil unions for homosexuals? Not thrilled but more open to that than marriage. Probalby since 'marriage' is the religious union.
I know people that are gay/lesbian and we can get along. I'm not out there trying to hunt them down, belittle or denegrate them.
But I do not condone their lifestyle. And yes, that is based on my religious beliefs. No, I am NOT Catholic. I have oh so many issues with Catholicism.
Maybe I used some poor choices for alternate examples. For that I apologize.
I do find it interesting how many people on the opposite side of this issue from me seem to very easily lose their cool and resort to name calling and profanity. I find that rather curious and humorous.
I think this is a sad issue to have distracted the nation away from the real issue of the very successful policies of Marxist-Muslim Obama.
Very sucessful in that he is accomplishing his goal of destroying this nation and preparing it for the one world government that the left wants.
Again, I apologize for my choice of comparisions I used earlier.
Since this is a distraction topic, I will no longer comment on it.
1100-1200 years ago, this want the case. Rape and murder of other people in other lands during conquest were common place and a major selling point in putting together conquesting armies. Completely ethical, then.
250 years ago, buying and selling people based on the color of their skin was acceptable and considered not only ethical but a pillar of southern economy until the 1860s in his country.
There are literally thousands of major and minor changes in the ethics of governments, religions, and societies just like this.
This is so far from a main issue now or even in the big giant scheme of life, it's not even funny. BUT, it sures the hell could effect the election and the Dem's know it. people in general are sheep. The dems are looking for a hot button issue to stem the bleeding and turn votes. Pick your battles wisely. This is simply not worth fighting for in the political atmosphere. if the republicans are smart, they will say hell yes to this and counterattack with real issues.
Your technically right that murder and rape are a "value" but they sure aren't in the same category as gay marriage.
The point is not to argue the semantics of what "values" are or are not, but rather that gay marriage has no direct "victim" like the others. Sure, you could make the "damage to society" argument but its could be argued the opposite way just as easily. Honestly, I'd be hard pressed to find a person that actually has their liberty affected by two dudes have a "title" of marriage.
You don't need to apologize. I'm not a fan of their life style either and its taking me awhile to come to the conclusion I've come to. The problem with being against marriage, for me, was the arguments I came up with always conflicted with me morally and what I know to be true in how we as humans, treat each other and live our lives. I didn't come to this conclusion over night. Not to sound like Obongo, but I've evolved to this conclusion and it wasn't easy.
Personally I believe their lifestyle is against nature at its core and some sort of perversion that can't be satisfied through normal opposite sex interaction. Quite frankly it gives me the willies to think about it.
Ok, I belive homosexuality is wrong.
I do not have all the answers to what God's plan is. I do believe that He allows us to have free will and that Satan also has power over us.
Is homosexuality one of Satan's tools? I don't know.
Civil unions for homosexuals? Not thrilled but more open to that than marriage. Probalby since 'marriage' is the religious union.
I know people that are gay/lesbian and we can get along. I'm not out there trying to hunt them down, belittle or denegrate them.
But I do not condone their lifestyle.
Maybe I used some poor choices for alternate examples. For that I apologize.
I do find it interesting how many people on the opposite side of this issue from me seem to very easily lose their cool and resort to name calling and profanity. I find that rather curious and humorous.
I think this is a sad issue to have distracted the nation away from the real issue of the very successful policies of Marxist-Muslim Obama.
Very sucessful in that he is accomplishing his goal of destroying this nation and preparing it for the one world government that the left wants.
Again, I apologize for my choice of comparisions I used earlier.
Since this is a distraction topic, I will no longer comment on it.
SA Friday
05-15-2012, 22:26
Your technically right that murder and rape are a "value" but they sure aren't in the same category as gay marriage.
The point is not to argue the semantics of what "values" are or are not, but rather that gay marriage has no direct "victim" like the others. Sure, you could make the "damage to society" argument but its could be argued the opposite way just as easily. Honestly, I'd be hard pressed to find a person that actually has their liberty affected by two dudes have a "title" of marriage.
I agree with you. I've been very openly vocal here on this topic regularly. I also think we can all see what this is right now though. It's a stance on a political hot topic by dems in an effort to get the hard core republicans to lose sight of what's really important. For a very very small minority in this country, with favorable support by the majority of the populace not directly effected, this is a life impacting political issue. The dems also know the politicians and their support base, like santorum, will go after it with zealotry instead of logic and it very well may be the difference between 4 more years of getting t-bagged by the current administration or not.
Regardless of where one stands on the issue. You just have to stand back and see it for what it is. No way in hell this revelation came from oblowme EXACTLY at the same time this issue is becoming a hot topic in one of his swing states from the last election, here in Colorado, by coincidence. The dems are setting the stage. The republicans need to simply say, "yep, we agree on this very small matter. Let the states make their own choices.", and pull the carpet out from under them.
Rucker61
05-15-2012, 22:29
Personally I believe their lifestyle is against nature at its core and some sort of perversion that can't be satisfied through normal opposite sex interaction. Quite frankly it gives me the willies to think about it.
Heh. That's the whole point, innit?
Heh. That's the whole point, innit?
My failure to be "comfortable" with the idea of two dudes boinking each other is not a reason to deny them their liberty in marriage.
The republicans need to simply say, "yep, we agree on this very small matter. Let the states make their own choices.", and pull the carpet out from under them.
Thats exactly what they need to do. Quite frankly there is no provision for the federal government to be regulating who gets married and who doesn't. It shouldn't even be a debate on the federal level at all.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.