Skip to comments.The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage [retread pinko zot]
Posted on 02/22/2012 12:01:42 PM PST by NoPinkos
Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.
Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation's commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.
This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike. The dream that became America began with the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence in words that are among the most noble and elegant ever written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."...
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
what part of “abomination” does Ted need explained??
Who is this nut?
Teddy is using his intellect and reasoning for the wrong purpose - to undermine judeo-christian values.
This is not a civil rights issue. It’s about sane Americans resisting the gay mafia’s attempts to redefine the word marriage.
Dressing up anal sex in flowery civil-rights language is leftwing propaganda of the highest order.
This is, I trust, Barbara’s husband? And he argues before the Supreme Court. He seems to be not merely amoral but monumentally brain-dead.
License to commit buggery is conservative? Conserve what?
When I see myself as labelled “almost knee-jerk” in the first sentence, I read no further.
My opposition to the homosexualization of marriage, and my opposition or support of anything else, is not “knee-jerk.” I have substantive reasons for my opinions. I think about things. I study.
This author is condescending and I therefore don’t care to read the article. If this author would like to win hearts or minds, he might start by not insulting the majority of Americans in his opening statement.
FReeper NoPinkos is without a doubt a zotted retread. All he/she/it does is post provocative BS to get the conservative base in an uproar, or to get Santorum supporters attacking Gingrich supporters.
He's often a Hit & Run poster too.
IBTZ NoPinkos, you POS!
The dailybeast now equals Newsweek??? Pinko?
I didn’t realize getting a pounding in the kazoo is conservative value.. Who would thought!
Step away from the bong, Teddy.
I’m not reading four pages of this. I wonder if he ever addresses the fact that for many homosexual men, marriage is no bar to promiscuity, no elixir of stability.
Marriage was intended to contain fertility. Now it is a privileging of sexual love above all other love.
And in turn, Ted's giving us the fake, knee-jerk emotional BS-propoganda that is used to justify "gay-marriage."
Many of the things he says about couples is true. Bedrock, Stable Bonds building blocks of our neighborhoods.
Two individuals WHO CAN BREED creating loving households and raising children.
Marriages are extemely important. That is why marrioage is between a man and a woman . Not two freaks who want to play with each other.
Seriously? Ted Olson worked for Reagan and Bush. He’s a big-time conservative, Goldwater guy...he has a different legal perspective on gay rights, however. Sees it as a rights issue, not a “morality” issue.
This is, I trust, Barbaras husband? And he argues before the Supreme Court. He seems to be not merely amoral but monumentally brain-dead.
....up to his eyeballs in NWO elites, I wonder if he put Barbara on the doomed plane cause she was too no nonsense conservative. Ted is really out there now and is remarried and is not trustworthy...
Ted Olson sounds potted and NoPinkos is ZOTTED!
The term marriage which has acquired the fixed meaning of man and woman pledging to each other has suddenly been given a new referent, which is then assumed to have been the meaning all along. Sodomy is neither marriage nor love it is a decadence phenomenon.
Let’s see....why not gay marriage?
2)Violates the design God intended.
3)It has a greater tendency to spread horrid diseases.
4)Violates a direct command of God.
5)Turns the stomach of any human male that has a shred of masculinity in them.
Okay...numbers 1 and 5 are subjective, but still...
Can someone please explain how 2 gay men can consummate their
Oh, but if only that were true. Liberals have made an industry over creating "victims". Once gays get their "so called" civil rights. The left won't miss a beat, they will move right on to pedophiles, zoophiles, etc. Whatever perversion they can try to bestow "civil rights" next. Gay rights is not the destination, it's just a stepping stone down the path of degeneracy.
Here’s a Princeton Professor arguing forcibly and logically AGAINST Gay Unions and Gay Marriages
Here’s a Princeton Professor arguing forcibly and logically AGAINST Gay Unions and Gay Marriages
The writer misinterprets the GOP stance. The GOP has not been discussing either homosexuality or birth control. The discussion has been on freedom of religion and defense of marriage.
Actually, the two go hand in hand because if the left is permitted to redefine marriage as a sexually ambiguous institution, and they get away with forcing the Catholic Church to take actions that violate their own precepts, the next step will be to force churches to recognize and even perform Gay marriages.
But, then will the churches also be forced to accept polygamy? Keep the government out of the churches, protect the definition of marriage.
Same sex 'marriage' not only denigrates the God given institution of marriage between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh), you also create a situation where you encourage people trapped in the snares of sin to not seek repentance.
Not to turn from a vile lifestyle that rebels and God and nature (Romans 1:26-27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet).
This is cruelty, and those that pander in their support of such sin, seek the praise of the 'world' (the world under satanic influence), rather than God. They would rather have the world wink at and praise their sense of 'tolerance', rather than save a lost soul from an eternity in hell.
Condescending is right. And probably naive as hell. I work in the theatre in NYC and probably have dealt with more gay men in a week than he has in a lifetime. They are an extremely radicalized group of men with an absolute hatred of women. Their relationships are always “open” and often corrupt. Just to stick the boot in: they are also unbelievably uncultured and ignorant of Western history, geography and art.
But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.[a] 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh;[b] so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.
I'm not a lawyer Ted, but I think even I can understand that. Unless you have an update, I'm sticking with the first email.
And it’s not even a matter of “freaks” or the like. Olson goes with the “gays can’t help being gays anymore than blacks can help being black”, so therefore you should NOT be able to discriminate against them. That is the fatal flaw of his argument because gay is behavior, not race or gender.
States will have to continue to put DOMA-style laws on the books for quite awhile to fend this kind of stuff off.
It’s not only the slippery slope,
but the real agenda here isn’t to legitimize same-sex “marriage”,
it is to de-legitimize marriage as a concept.
I take it you agree with Ted Olsen's position?
I take it you think that this is a Civil Rights issue?
spread of disease, increase in violence, increase in suicide, increase in instability of children - those are not subjective, they are objective!
I don’t know about the USA, but in Canada, Gov’t statistics show that homosexual men live more than 21 years LESS than the average heterosexual man.
The wages of sin are indeed death.
He’s a nut, obviously.
Now his wife... She was a real conservative. Unfortunately, she died on 9/11 aboard AA Flight 77.
Goldwater also went over to the Homosexaul lobby as well.
The fact is that in no way could redefining marriage to include same-sex be considered 'conservative'.
The legal rights that homosexuals have is for 'unions', but that isn't good enough for them, they want to change reality from the fact that they are involved in a depraved lifestyle and want it to be considered normal.
That is the REAL agenda, not rights.
Anybody that marries for sex is going to be disappointed.
No, see my 34 on that. I was very surprised that some did not recognize Ted Olson’s name, however. Regardless of this particular issue, he’s a pretty big name in conservative circles.
to add to your list;
Gay marriage allows the huge, rich homosexual organizations (funded by Home Depot, Disney, Ford Foundation, Haas Foundation and many others)to get rid of faith-based adoption agencies, to allow gay adoptions, teach homosexuality in schools, demand homosexual arts funding and in a thousand ways get into the pockets of taxpayers and deny freedom of religion.
It allows them to attack churches who will not perform gay marriages.
Also only 20% of gays get married and most of those are lesbians.
Good catch yourself there Flycather.
That No Pink wad is not a hit and run poster any more.
Agreed on that. States are well within their rights to limit marriage to whoever it pleases. It is up to us as citizens and voters to limit that to one man-one woman.
Didn't realize you were a poet, Jaz.
Now I'll try:
Please go straight to Heck.
Dang. I can't think of a rhyme... ;^)
Good catch yourself there Flycather.Flycatcher.
I’m not opposed to same sex “marriage” per se (although I would prefer the term “garriage”,”fairrage”,”larriage” oe even “harriage”). I’m frankly tired of trying to make a non-believing world ACT as if they were believers. I know I’ll catch hell for that from fellow freepers, BUT, I do have questions about unintended consequences. So prisons will now have gay conjugal visits? If a gay married couple commit a bank robbery, get caught and convicted - do they go to the same prison and even cell? Can sisters now marry? If a gay married couple go to Saudi Arabia - is that suicide?
Just how many times are you faggots going to post this bs vanity and get zotted?
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.