Can conservatives maintain their views on gay marriage?

[Votto]

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 now people can't have different views according to you the fake republican?
stop yanking our chain you are Republican..you have all the views and snobbery of a liberal..
wear it proud

So you have to be a bigot in order to be a republican today? Geez can any one tell me why we cant seem to win an election anymore? Let me help you out here Stephanie and im going to be really blunt so I hope your geriatric ass can handle it. YOU and the rest of your radical conservatives are the reason we lost the last election and will continue to lose elections until we purge the stupid from this once upon a time great nation.. You force the sane to run on platforms they dont believe in or else pastor jim of the southern methodist baptist church of West Monroe Louisiana will tell his congregation that this man was sent by the devil!

Open your eyes to the world that is fucking around you. Homosexuality is normal today. Hating those who are gay for that reason makes you look like an ignorant ass who hasnt left the 1920's. Im tired of people telling me I cant be a Republican because I dont hate a certain group.. You ma'am are not a Republican, You are a bigot, nothing more, but im sure a whole lot less

Good day

I believe that you are a Republican. In fact, the GOP keeps wanting to move to the left every year, so why not just buck up and join the DNC? Hmm? In fact, when is the last time anyone in the GOP actually limited the scope and power of government?

As a conservative, I oppose government even being involved in marriage for anyone. Why should not all Americans have the same rights as people recognized married by the state? Must the state approve of only certain sexual/family arrangements and not others? This is absurd.

Here is my take on gay marriage. Gay marriage is nothing more than an attempt to make the gay lifestyle more socially acceptable. Once it becomes law, it will be like outlawing slavery in the 1800's that was once socially acceptable when it was legal. After centuries of being illegal, slavery seems to us to be absurdly immoral but when it was legal people thought nothing much of it. Or how about abortion? Before it was made legal, the consensus was that abortion was immoral, but now that it has been legal for decades, the pendulum of public opinion has swung the other way. That is the power of the state upon ones moral stance. History proves my point. As we see more and more places in the US making gay marriage legal, we see more and more people approving of it.

So why does this concern me? Gays in the US account for only about 5% of the population, but also account for well over half the AIDS and STD cases in the US. Specifically, I'm talking about gay males. It is an unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle. The facts prove my point.

Of course, most would say that you can't help being gay, but then, most don't take into account ancient Greece and Sparta where all males dabbled in gay sex. From this we can see that the lifestyle is socially mediated. I'm not saying that there are no genetic factors that influence a few, rather, I'm simply saying that the majority of people can be influenced heavily by social norms to swing that way who would not ordinarily do so. History proves my point.

 

[Gadawg73]

The best place to find folks to get them to think twice about their views on gay marriage is in the Republican Party.
And I see it happening SUDDEN LIKE.
My take is to discuss it civilly and ask them why they OPPOSE it. I find they have little to no real reason other than the "it is between a man and a woman".
Once I get them past it HAS NOT EFFECT ON THEIR MARRIAGE most all admit they do not OPPOSE IT.
They many not support it but if they do not oppose it Republicans gain a lot.

I tend to lean pro-gay marriage but I was against gay marriage about five years ago. There was no "sudden like" about it. However, you are talking about the republican party in general. If all you heard, in terms of being against gay marriage, was "it is between a man and a woman" then you have limited yourself to liberal blogs and MSNBC. Many, such as myself, who were against gay marriage wanted certain topics discussed. Such as, does allowing gay marriage change a society, and if so, then in what way? Does gay marriage alter traditional family values? If so, then in what way? If gay couples choose to adopt a child, does the child flourish in this environment or does he perish? If gay couples choose to decide to adopt a child does the child have a greater risk of being abused (i.e. the catholic church)? Some of these questions are certainly (according to many) absurd questions that only a fool would ask but political correctness is not what I am concerned with. Allowing gay marriage would mean allowing adoption and this is the particular part of the discussion I am most interested in. After reading many statistics and information (and yes, going by my own observations) I have felt better about the implementation of gay marriage.
I do not believe people against gay marriage however are the personification of evil and bigotry. Many religious people believe that homosexuality is immoral. Even though I disagree with these people (I'm an atheist) I am also aware that most of these people have given to far more charities and helped far more people than I would ever do.
This discussion, I believe, is not about good vs. evil or bigotry vs. enlightenment. It is a discussion about the ramifications of changing one of the most basic concepts mankind has ever held. Some concepts are worth saving. Some concepts aren't worth saving. Hence, the discussion. I happen to promote the discussion without promoting the name calling and anger that both sides engage in.

I do not look at liberal blogs or read msnbc.
It is none of my or anyone's business if someone else that is a good citizen adopts children.
No one else's marriage affects me or anyone else's "traditional family values" YOU have your family and they have theirs. YOU are in charge of your own family's values. I and no one else has any business in anyone else's. There is no evidence that there is child abuse greater in a gay couple's or a Catholic couple be they gay or straight household.

 

[Gadawg73]

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?

The rulings have been court rulings, nothing about how much support amongst the people.
Something about THE LAW which limits the power of government, specifically states that we are not a mob majority rule nation and always fully protects the rights of the minority, THE INDIVIDUAL.

 

[t_polkow]

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 now people can't have different views according to you the fake republican?
stop yanking our chain you are Republican..you have all the views and snobbery of a liberal..
wear it proud

Has it occurred to you that young Republicans are more liberal than their mentally fossilized elders? The old guard is dying off and the young turks have to deal with the realities that face them today. They are under no obligation to re-fight the battles that you have already lost.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

The best place to find folks to get them to think twice about their views on gay marriage is in the Republican Party.
And I see it happening SUDDEN LIKE.
My take is to discuss it civilly and ask them why they OPPOSE it. I find they have little to no real reason other than the "it is between a man and a woman".
Once I get them past it HAS NOT EFFECT ON THEIR MARRIAGE most all admit they do not OPPOSE IT.
They many not support it but if they do not oppose it Republicans gain a lot.

I tend to lean pro-gay marriage but I was against gay marriage about five years ago. There was no "sudden like" about it. However, you are talking about the republican party in general. If all you heard, in terms of being against gay marriage, was "it is between a man and a woman" then you have limited yourself to liberal blogs and MSNBC. Many, such as myself, who were against gay marriage wanted certain topics discussed. Such as, does allowing gay marriage change a society, and if so, then in what way? Does gay marriage alter traditional family values? If so, then in what way? If gay couples choose to adopt a child, does the child flourish in this environment or does he perish? If gay couples choose to decide to adopt a child does the child have a greater risk of being abused (i.e. the catholic church)? Some of these questions are certainly (according to many) absurd questions that only a fool would ask but political correctness is not what I am concerned with. Allowing gay marriage would mean allowing adoption and this is the particular part of the discussion I am most interested in. After reading many statistics and information (and yes, going by my own observations) I have felt better about the implementation of gay marriage.
I do not believe people against gay marriage however are the personification of evil and bigotry. Many religious people believe that homosexuality is immoral. Even though I disagree with these people (I'm an atheist) I am also aware that most of these people have given to far more charities and helped far more people than I would ever do.
This discussion, I believe, is not about good vs. evil or bigotry vs. enlightenment. It is a discussion about the ramifications of changing one of the most basic concepts mankind has ever held. Some concepts are worth saving. Some concepts aren't worth saving. Hence, the discussion. I happen to promote the discussion without promoting the name calling and anger that both sides engage in.

I do not look at liberal blogs or read msnbc.
It is none of my or anyone's business if someone else that is a good citizen adopts children.
No one else's marriage affects me or anyone else's "traditional family values" YOU have your family and they have theirs. YOU are in charge of your own family's values. I and no one else has any business in anyone else's. There is no evidence that there is child abuse greater in a gay couple's or a Catholic couple be they gay or straight household.

Well over half (in the 90% area) of sexual abuse cases in the catholic church had to do with male priests and young boys. I don't believe there was one case involving a nun and a young girl. That being said, I simply was talking about my own thought process that led me to believe that gay marriage is acceptable. Homosexual pedophilia ran rampant in the catholic church but not in society in general. Thusly, after reading up on the issue, I find myself siding with gay marriage. In the end, we seem to agree. I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with since I was talking about my own personal journey into accepting gay marriage.

 

[Gadawg73]

I tend to lean pro-gay marriage but I was against gay marriage about five years ago. There was no "sudden like" about it. However, you are talking about the republican party in general. If all you heard, in terms of being against gay marriage, was "it is between a man and a woman" then you have limited yourself to liberal blogs and MSNBC. Many, such as myself, who were against gay marriage wanted certain topics discussed. Such as, does allowing gay marriage change a society, and if so, then in what way? Does gay marriage alter traditional family values? If so, then in what way? If gay couples choose to adopt a child, does the child flourish in this environment or does he perish? If gay couples choose to decide to adopt a child does the child have a greater risk of being abused (i.e. the catholic church)? Some of these questions are certainly (according to many) absurd questions that only a fool would ask but political correctness is not what I am concerned with. Allowing gay marriage would mean allowing adoption and this is the particular part of the discussion I am most interested in. After reading many statistics and information (and yes, going by my own observations) I have felt better about the implementation of gay marriage.
I do not believe people against gay marriage however are the personification of evil and bigotry. Many religious people believe that homosexuality is immoral. Even though I disagree with these people (I'm an atheist) I am also aware that most of these people have given to far more charities and helped far more people than I would ever do.
This discussion, I believe, is not about good vs. evil or bigotry vs. enlightenment. It is a discussion about the ramifications of changing one of the most basic concepts mankind has ever held. Some concepts are worth saving. Some concepts aren't worth saving. Hence, the discussion. I happen to promote the discussion without promoting the name calling and anger that both sides engage in.

I do not look at liberal blogs or read msnbc.
It is none of my or anyone's business if someone else that is a good citizen adopts children.
No one else's marriage affects me or anyone else's "traditional family values" YOU have your family and they have theirs. YOU are in charge of your own family's values. I and no one else has any business in anyone else's. There is no evidence that there is child abuse greater in a gay couple's or a Catholic couple be they gay or straight household.

Well over half (in the 90% area) of sexual abuse cases in the catholic church had to do with male priests and young boys. I don't believe there was one case involving a nun and a young girl. That being said, I simply was talking about my own thought process that led me to believe that gay marriage is acceptable. Homosexual pedophilia ran rampant in the catholic church but not in society in general. Thusly, after reading up on the issue, I find myself siding with gay marriage. In the end, we seem to agree. I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with since I was talking about my own personal journey into accepting gay marriage.

They were not adopted or living together as families.
That was about sexual molestation, NOT gays adopting kids and getting married.

 

[MaryL]

I am so confused on why a sexual dysfunction/ perversion has been further twisted into a "civil rights" issue to begin with. Be that as it may. Democracy now seems to be just a popularity contest. All us old fogies believe that sexual preference is a silly artificial matter unrelated to practical issues.

 

[AmyNation]

Marriage and all the automatic rights and privileges granted with it, is a practical issue.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I tend to lean pro-gay marriage but I was against gay marriage about five years ago. There was no "sudden like" about it. However, you are talking about the republican party in general. If all you heard, in terms of being against gay marriage, was "it is between a man and a woman" then you have limited yourself to liberal blogs and MSNBC. Many, such as myself, who were against gay marriage wanted certain topics discussed. Such as, does allowing gay marriage change a society, and if so, then in what way? Does gay marriage alter traditional family values? If so, then in what way? If gay couples choose to adopt a child, does the child flourish in this environment or does he perish? If gay couples choose to decide to adopt a child does the child have a greater risk of being abused (i.e. the catholic church)? Some of these questions are certainly (according to many) absurd questions that only a fool would ask but political correctness is not what I am concerned with. Allowing gay marriage would mean allowing adoption and this is the particular part of the discussion I am most interested in. After reading many statistics and information (and yes, going by my own observations) I have felt better about the implementation of gay marriage.
I do not believe people against gay marriage however are the personification of evil and bigotry. Many religious people believe that homosexuality is immoral. Even though I disagree with these people (I'm an atheist) I am also aware that most of these people have given to far more charities and helped far more people than I would ever do.
This discussion, I believe, is not about good vs. evil or bigotry vs. enlightenment. It is a discussion about the ramifications of changing one of the most basic concepts mankind has ever held. Some concepts are worth saving. Some concepts aren't worth saving. Hence, the discussion. I happen to promote the discussion without promoting the name calling and anger that both sides engage in.

I do not look at liberal blogs or read msnbc.
It is none of my or anyone's business if someone else that is a good citizen adopts children.
No one else's marriage affects me or anyone else's "traditional family values" YOU have your family and they have theirs. YOU are in charge of your own family's values. I and no one else has any business in anyone else's. There is no evidence that there is child abuse greater in a gay couple's or a Catholic couple be they gay or straight household.

Well over half (in the 90% area) of sexual abuse cases in the catholic church had to do with male priests and young boys. I don't believe there was one case involving a nun and a young girl. That being said, I simply was talking about my own thought process that led me to believe that gay marriage is acceptable. Homosexual pedophilia ran rampant in the catholic church but not in society in general. Thusly, after reading up on the issue, I find myself siding with gay marriage. In the end, we seem to agree. I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with since I was talking about my own personal journey into accepting gay marriage.

Pedophiles are NOT homosexuals, they are sexual predators that prey on children.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I am so confused on why a sexual dysfunction/ perversion has been further twisted into a "civil rights" issue to begin with. Be that as it may. Democracy now seems to be just a popularity contest. All us old fogies believe that sexual preference is a silly artificial matter unrelated to practical issues.

A BJ meets the criteria of a "sexual dysfunction/ perversion". So does a lap dance, heavy petting, masturbation, threesomes, etc, etc. They all meet your definition. Why discriminate against one "unnatural behavior" versus all of the others?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I do not look at liberal blogs or read msnbc.
It is none of my or anyone's business if someone else that is a good citizen adopts children.
No one else's marriage affects me or anyone else's "traditional family values" YOU have your family and they have theirs. YOU are in charge of your own family's values. I and no one else has any business in anyone else's. There is no evidence that there is child abuse greater in a gay couple's or a Catholic couple be they gay or straight household.

Well over half (in the 90% area) of sexual abuse cases in the catholic church had to do with male priests and young boys. I don't believe there was one case involving a nun and a young girl. That being said, I simply was talking about my own thought process that led me to believe that gay marriage is acceptable. Homosexual pedophilia ran rampant in the catholic church but not in society in general. Thusly, after reading up on the issue, I find myself siding with gay marriage. In the end, we seem to agree. I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with since I was talking about my own personal journey into accepting gay marriage.

Pedophiles are NOT homosexuals, they are sexual predators that prey on children.

There are homosexual predators who prey on children. I don't really understand changing the definition of "gay" unless it's a political correct thing. Most children in the U.S. are young girls being molested by straight guys (often a stepfather or any man the mother moves into the house).

 

[Gadawg73]

I am so confused on why a sexual dysfunction/ perversion has been further twisted into a "civil rights" issue to begin with. Be that as it may. Democracy now seems to be just a popularity contest. All us old fogies believe that sexual preference is a silly artificial matter unrelated to practical issues.

Democracy is mob majority rule and the US is not and has never been a democracy.
Something about the Constitution and the limits on the power of government and mob rule democracy with specific Amendments protecting the rights of the MINORITY, THE INDIVIDUAL.
What is and isn't a perversion is your opinion only and I respect that but your religious views have no place in THE LAW.
We are a nation OF LAWS, not people and their various and changing like the wind religious beliefs.
Just because you believe gay folks are 2nd class citizens does not make it so.
However, I do agree you are confused.

 

[Polk]

Well over half (in the 90% area) of sexual abuse cases in the catholic church had to do with male priests and young boys. I don't believe there was one case involving a nun and a young girl. That being said, I simply was talking about my own thought process that led me to believe that gay marriage is acceptable. Homosexual pedophilia ran rampant in the catholic church but not in society in general. Thusly, after reading up on the issue, I find myself siding with gay marriage. In the end, we seem to agree. I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with since I was talking about my own personal journey into accepting gay marriage.

Pedophiles are NOT homosexuals, they are sexual predators that prey on children.

There are homosexual predators who prey on children. I don't really understand changing the definition of "gay" unless it's a political correct thing. Most children in the U.S. are young girls being molested by straight guys (often a stepfather or any man the mother moves into the house).

Even men molesting little boys aren't necessarily homosexual. Rape isn't about sex, it's about power.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Pedophiles are NOT homosexuals, they are sexual predators that prey on children.

There are homosexual predators who prey on children. I don't really understand changing the definition of "gay" unless it's a political correct thing. Most children in the U.S. are young girls being molested by straight guys (often a stepfather or any man the mother moves into the house).

Even men molesting little boys aren't necessarily homosexual. Rape isn't about sex, it's about power.

I agree, some men molesting little boys aren't necessarily homosexual. However, the homosexual men who molest boys tend to be homosexual. Straight perverted sick men who molest girls are often STRAIGHT perverted sick men.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I also get the impression some people who read my post didn't read it all the way through. I talked about how I used to be against gay marriage and all the reasons why. I then changed my mind and decided that the reasons that I had for being against gay marriage didn't hold up to several years of scrutiny I had given this very topic.

 

[Mertex]

I am so confused on why a sexual dysfunction/ perversion has been further twisted into a "civil rights" issue to begin with. Be that as it may. Democracy now seems to be just a popularity contest. All us old fogies believe that sexual preference is a silly artificial matter unrelated to practical issues.

Nobody is saying that homosexuality is a "civil right" - marriage is a civil right. And to withhold that right from some individuals based on personal belief is contrary to our Constitution.

 

[YoungRepublican]

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.

Morally speaking, yes!

Which side did it take in WW 2?
Civil Rights?
Women's suffrage?
Slavery
how we view those who were on what we see as the wrong side of history is prevalent. How is Strom Thurman's reputation holding up after the civil rights movement? You will just be a part of that type of discussion. People will look back in history and see people like you the same way they view people today who picketed the acceptance of African Americans into university. Hate filled, ignorant, unintelligent, bigots.

 

[Mertex]

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.

Morally speaking, yes!

Which side did it take in WW 2?
Civil Rights?
Women's suffrage?
Slavery
how we view those who were on what we see as the wrong side of history is prevalent. How is Strom Thurman's reputation holding up after the civil rights movement? You will just be a part of that type of discussion. People will look back in history and see people like you the same way they view people today who picketed the acceptance of African Americans into university. Hate filled, ignorant, unintelligent, bigots.

But many Republicans still think Strom Thurman was a great American, probably because they agree with his racist views. You can't get them to realize their bigotry.

 

[YoungRepublican]

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.

Morally speaking, yes!

Which side did it take in WW 2?
Civil Rights?
Women's suffrage?
Slavery
how we view those who were on what we see as the wrong side of history is prevalent. How is Strom Thurman's reputation holding up after the civil rights movement? You will just be a part of that type of discussion. People will look back in history and see people like you the same way they view people today who picketed the acceptance of African Americans into university. Hate filled, ignorant, unintelligent, bigots.

But many Republicans still think Strom Thurman was a great American, probably because they agree with his racist views. You can't get them to realize their bigotry.

No, but I can try. If anyone looks back positively on Thurmond then we know they obviously have some racist tendencies. Why would you want to class yourself with people like that? Much like why would you want to class yourself with people who are against gay rights.

Im not saying the catholic church needs to accept them with open arms, that is religion and I can respect that. however, there is no reason for the U.S. Government, a nation that is not based in any religion, to deny two people the right to marry. Currently they are slowly making the move to modernization, but this could move so much quicker if people just evolved mentally. Just like we did during civil rights.

 

[YoungRepublican]

Im sorry.. I know you are on my side Mertex, these people just drive me nuts..