Can conservatives maintain their views on gay marriage?

[YoungRepublican]

There you go again.

It is impossible to be on the wrong side of history, history doesn't take sides.

Only a bigot would call a homosexual that opposes same sex marraige homophobic.

You can be on the wrong side of history.. The Nazis were on the wrong side of history, the KKK, slave owners. Plenty of people have been on the wrong side of history.
Are you telling me that you are a gay person who opposes gay marriage?

You can never be on the wrong side of history by standing for marriage and the family. Nor can you be on the wrong side of history by not empowering government to regulate more of the lives of your fellow citizens.

Or empowering government to withhold human rights to a certain group of people.

 

[AmyNation]

I'm assuming by conservatives you mean the GOP party platform view.

Sure they can.


Yes it's a view that's becoming less and less popular, and I believe it'll become a constitutional issue and be the law of the land within the next 10 years. However, the GOP is also the more religious party, and the views on traditional marriage and traditional sex are their voters views.

When the voters shift the party will shift to reflect them.

 

[YoungRepublican]

I'm assuming by conservatives you mean the GOP party platform view.

Sure they can.


Yes it's a view that's becoming less and less popular, and I believe it'll become a constitutional issue and be the law of the land within the next 10 years. However, the GOP is also the more religious party, and the views on traditional marriage and traditional sex are their voters views.

When the voters shift the party will shift to reflect them.

I understand that, but where has the common sense gone in the party? We need to return to the days of Eisenhower, where Republican's were actual Republicans.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There you go again.

It is impossible to be on the wrong side of history, history doesn't take sides.

Only a bigot would call a homosexual that opposes same sex marraige homophobic.

You can be on the wrong side of history.. The Nazis were on the wrong side of history, the KKK, slave owners. Plenty of people have been on the wrong side of history.
Are you telling me that you are a gay person who opposes gay marriage?

You can never be on the wrong side of history by standing for marriage and the family. Nor can you be on the wrong side of history by not empowering government to regulate more of the lives of your fellow citizens.

Recognizing the right of same-sex couples to access marriage law in accordance with the 14th Amendment is standing for marriage and the family, in addition to the Constitution.

And those who advocate laws denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights, or women their privacy rights, or immigrants their due process also empower government to regulate more of the lives of your fellow citizens.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm assuming by conservatives you mean the GOP party platform view.

Sure they can.


Yes it's a view that's becoming less and less popular, and I believe it'll become a constitutional issue and be the law of the land within the next 10 years. However, the GOP is also the more religious party, and the views on traditional marriage and traditional sex are their voters views.

When the voters shift the party will shift to reflect them.

I understand that, but where has the common sense gone in the party? We need to return to the days of Eisenhower, where Republican's were actual Republicans.

And that’s the proverbial rub.

Republicans are addicted to the political crack represented by social conservatives, Christian fundamentalists, fiscal extremists, and warmongering neo-cons.

They’re not willingly going to return control of the GOP to the Eisenhower republicans who are more interested in responsible governance than blind partisanism.

 

[AmyNation]

I'm assuming by conservatives you mean the GOP party platform view.

Sure they can.


Yes it's a view that's becoming less and less popular, and I believe it'll become a constitutional issue and be the law of the land within the next 10 years. However, the GOP is also the more religious party, and the views on traditional marriage and traditional sex are their voters views.

When the voters shift the party will shift to reflect them.

I understand that, but where has the common sense gone in the party? We need to return to the days of Eisenhower, where Republican's were actual Republicans.

I'd bet Eisenhower wasn't a fan of gay marriage either

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Whoaaa.. I simply stated that those that are homophobic are on the wrong side of history and will be remembered that way. Who is talking about race here?

There you go again.

It is impossible to be on the wrong side of history, history doesn't take sides.

Only a bigot would call a homosexual that opposes same sex marraige homophobic.

You can be on the wrong side of history.. The Nazis were on the wrong side of history, the KKK, slave owners. Plenty of people have been on the wrong side of history.
Are you telling me that you are a gay person who opposes gay marriage?

If they had won the war would they have been on the right side of history, or are you just grasping for straws?

My position, the Nazi's were wrong, they would have been wrong even if they won WWII and still ruled the world today.

There are gays that oppose same sex marriage, there are people that are scared shitless of homosexuals that don't have a problem with it. The only people that resort to bigotry are bigots, which is why you should slap yourself silly. Unfortunately, you are not smart enough to understand how stupid you are.

 

[YoungRepublican]

There you go again.

It is impossible to be on the wrong side of history, history doesn't take sides.

Only a bigot would call a homosexual that opposes same sex marraige homophobic.

You can be on the wrong side of history.. The Nazis were on the wrong side of history, the KKK, slave owners. Plenty of people have been on the wrong side of history.
Are you telling me that you are a gay person who opposes gay marriage?

If they had won the war would they have been on the right side of history, or are you just grasping for straws?

My position, the Nazi's were wrong, they would have been wrong even if they won WWII and still ruled the world today.

There are gays that oppose same sex marriage, there are people that are scared shitless of homosexuals that don't have a problem with it. The only people that resort to bigotry are bigots, which is why you should slap yourself silly. Unfortunately, you are not smart enough to understand how stupid you are.

And my position is that those who wish to deny gays the right to marry are on the wrong side of history. You would be wrong even if it wasn't going to be completely legal within the next ten years.

There maybe a handful of gays that don't support it, but there are a great majority who are being denied it. You obviously live with your eyes closed if you do not see the hate for homosexuals and the ignorance that makes so many look backwards. I am not the bigot pal, I don't want to deny anyone the right to be happy. That would be you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can be on the wrong side of history.. The Nazis were on the wrong side of history, the KKK, slave owners. Plenty of people have been on the wrong side of history.
Are you telling me that you are a gay person who opposes gay marriage?

If they had won the war would they have been on the right side of history, or are you just grasping for straws?

My position, the Nazi's were wrong, they would have been wrong even if they won WWII and still ruled the world today.

There are gays that oppose same sex marriage, there are people that are scared shitless of homosexuals that don't have a problem with it. The only people that resort to bigotry are bigots, which is why you should slap yourself silly. Unfortunately, you are not smart enough to understand how stupid you are.

And my position is that those who wish to deny gays the right to marry are on the wrong side of history. You would be wrong even if it wasn't going to be completely legal within the next ten years.

There maybe a handful of gays that don't support it, but there are a great majority who are being denied it. You obviously live with your eyes closed if you do not see the hate for homosexuals and the ignorance that makes so many look backwards. I am not the bigot pal, I don't want to deny anyone the right to be happy. That would be you.

Your position does not exist in reality, history does not have sides.

Does having your lack of compassion and self hatred exposed bother you? My advice to you is to get over it.

By the way, if you really wanted people to be happy you would not argue that anyone is on the wrong side of history. The one thing that history has shown is that some people are only happy if they are making other people miserable. You are correct that I don't want everyone happy, because I recognize the danger of allowing people like Bundy to be happy.

I prefer for people to be free.

 

[YoungRepublican]

If they had won the war would they have been on the right side of history, or are you just grasping for straws?

My position, the Nazi's were wrong, they would have been wrong even if they won WWII and still ruled the world today.

There are gays that oppose same sex marriage, there are people that are scared shitless of homosexuals that don't have a problem with it. The only people that resort to bigotry are bigots, which is why you should slap yourself silly. Unfortunately, you are not smart enough to understand how stupid you are.

And my position is that those who wish to deny gays the right to marry are on the wrong side of history. You would be wrong even if it wasn't going to be completely legal within the next ten years.

There maybe a handful of gays that don't support it, but there are a great majority who are being denied it. You obviously live with your eyes closed if you do not see the hate for homosexuals and the ignorance that makes so many look backwards. I am not the bigot pal, I don't want to deny anyone the right to be happy. That would be you.

Your position does not exist in reality, history does not have sides.

Does having your lack of compassion and self hatred exposed bother you? My advice to you is to get over it.

By the way, if you really wanted people to be happy you would not argue that anyone is on the wrong side of history. The one thing that history has shown is that some people are only happy if they are making other people miserable. You are correct that I don't want everyone happy, because I recognize the danger of allowing people like Bundy to be happy.

I prefer for people to be free.

I don't know what you think you have exposed. My lack of compassion for the unintelligent might as well be tattooed on my forehead and I love myself, no worries on that one.

You are wrong though, history does have sides. I've never even heard that it doesn't before. I can see this very clearly, it makes many people happy to hate gays and they will do everything they can to ensure that they cannot marry. If that is your intuition and you get some weird kick out of making people you will never know miserable, well than that's your thing. Im just going to keep fighting the good fight for human rights.

 

[Mertex]

I understand what you're saying but there are many democrats that are still against gay marriage even though they may not advertise it as often. Let's not forget, Obama was against gay marriage less than a year ago. So don't give up hope.

Do anybody really believe Obama was against gay marriage?

I can't speak for anybody else. I personally believe he was probably for gay marriage but being a typical politician he just lied to get elected. I have no proof though.

Oh yeah, everyone that voted for him voted for him because he was against same sex marriage. Do you realize how utterly dumb that sounds?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Do anybody really believe Obama was against gay marriage?

I can't speak for anybody else. I personally believe he was probably for gay marriage but being a typical politician he just lied to get elected. I have no proof though.

Oh yeah, everyone that voted for him voted for him because he was against same sex marriage. Do you realize how utterly dumb that sounds?

Uhmmm... lol... what the hell are you talking about? I don't really think anybody votes for a presidential nominee because of gay marriage. That wasn't the topic though.

 

[bodecea]

I'm assuming by conservatives you mean the GOP party platform view.

Sure they can.


Yes it's a view that's becoming less and less popular, and I believe it'll become a constitutional issue and be the law of the land within the next 10 years. However, the GOP is also the more religious party, and the views on traditional marriage and traditional sex are their voters views.

When the voters shift the party will shift to reflect them.

I understand that, but where has the common sense gone in the party? We need to return to the days of Eisenhower, where Republican's were actual Republicans.

I'd bet Eisenhower wasn't a fan of gay marriage either

But he certainly dealt with the gays in the military when he was in.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And my position is that those who wish to deny gays the right to marry are on the wrong side of history. You would be wrong even if it wasn't going to be completely legal within the next ten years.

There maybe a handful of gays that don't support it, but there are a great majority who are being denied it. You obviously live with your eyes closed if you do not see the hate for homosexuals and the ignorance that makes so many look backwards. I am not the bigot pal, I don't want to deny anyone the right to be happy. That would be you.

Your position does not exist in reality, history does not have sides.

Does having your lack of compassion and self hatred exposed bother you? My advice to you is to get over it.

By the way, if you really wanted people to be happy you would not argue that anyone is on the wrong side of history. The one thing that history has shown is that some people are only happy if they are making other people miserable. You are correct that I don't want everyone happy, because I recognize the danger of allowing people like Bundy to be happy.

I prefer for people to be free.

I don't know what you think you have exposed. My lack of compassion for the unintelligent might as well be tattooed on my forehead and I love myself, no worries on that one.

You are wrong though, history does have sides. I've never even heard that it doesn't before. I can see this very clearly, it makes many people happy to hate gays and they will do everything they can to ensure that they cannot marry. If that is your intuition and you get some weird kick out of making people you will never know miserable, well than that's your thing. Im just going to keep fighting the good fight for human rights.

History has sides?

What side did it take in the 100 years war?

How about the War of the Roses?

Did history declare that England had the right to use Australia as a dumping ground for criminals?

You really should stop hating yourself for being stupid, and stop trying to argue that history, which is not a human being capable of choosing a side, has sides.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I understand that, but where has the common sense gone in the party? We need to return to the days of Eisenhower, where Republican's were actual Republicans.

I'd bet Eisenhower wasn't a fan of gay marriage either

But he certainly dealt with the gays in the military whene he was in.

He certainly did. He fought against any legal challenge to DADT, and demanded the court that ruled against it allow him to ignore the order that overturned it in order to give him time to fake an end run around the need to let gays serve openly.

You really need to stop rewriting history in order to make a craven coward look good.

 

[Polk]

I understand what you're saying but there are many democrats that are still against gay marriage even though they may not advertise it as often. Let's not forget, Obama was against gay marriage less than a year ago. So don't give up hope.

Do anybody really believe Obama was against gay marriage?

I can't speak for anybody else. I personally believe he was probably for gay marriage but being a typical politician he just lied to get elected. I have no proof though.

I'm pretty sure that's what every informed observer thought.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I can't speak for anybody else. I personally believe he was probably for gay marriage but being a typical politician he just lied to get elected. I have no proof though.

Oh yeah, everyone that voted for him voted for him because he was against same sex marriage. Do you realize how utterly dumb that sounds?

Uhmmm... lol... what the hell are you talking about? I don't really think anybody votes for a presidential nominee because of gay marriage. That wasn't the topic though.

There was the saying that republicans drove voter turnout with the 3 G's, (guns, gays and God) so there might have been some who voted against democratic nominees in the past. But to your point it is highly unlikely that gay marriage would ever have been the sole driving factor behind any reasonable person's vote.

 

[Polk]

Oh yeah, everyone that voted for him voted for him because he was against same sex marriage. Do you realize how utterly dumb that sounds?

Uhmmm... lol... what the hell are you talking about? I don't really think anybody votes for a presidential nominee because of gay marriage. That wasn't the topic though.

There was the saying that republicans drove voter turnout with the 3 G's, (guns, gays and God) so there might have been some who voted against democratic nominees in the past. But to your point it is highly unlikely that gay marriage would ever have been the sole driving factor behind any reasonable person's vote.

That's more about anti-gay marriage ballot measures driving voters to the polls, not previous Democratic nominees supporting gay marriage.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Uhmmm... lol... what the hell are you talking about? I don't really think anybody votes for a presidential nominee because of gay marriage. That wasn't the topic though.

There was the saying that republicans drove voter turnout with the 3 G's, (guns, gays and God) so there might have been some who voted against democratic nominees in the past. But to your point it is highly unlikely that gay marriage would ever have been the sole driving factor behind any reasonable person's vote.

That's more about anti-gay marriage ballot measures driving voters to the polls, not previous Democratic nominees supporting gay marriage.

Yes, my fault for not making that clear.

 

[koshergrl]

So, with gay marriage now legal in 12 states support currently over 50% is there anyway conservatives can maintain their views on the matter? 26% rise in approval in just 15 years and the number shows no signs of stopping. Is there a legitimate argument or is this just the civil rights fight all over again where the older generation eventually caves into modernity.

So...12 states is roughly 1/4 (less, actually) of all states...and in those states only 1/2 of the voters are supportive....

I'm wondering what sort of math leads you to believe this indicates there's a huge homosexual marriage revolution cooking?