Skip to comments.The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage [retread pinko zot]
Posted on 02/22/2012 12:01:42 PM PST by NoPinkos
click here to read article
You’ll be pleased to know you are IATZ.
No Pinko is No More-O
So are you saying Ted Olsen knew 9/11 was going to happen, with that particular plane, which would also mean George Bush knew, and that he therefore murdered his wife because her political leanings didn't match his?
I know you're trying to be witty, but I think you're way over the line with that comment.
Some log cabin republicrat wrote this.the dilution /fraud of same sex marriage is an attack on the very institution -nothing conservative about it. It is anti-christian and cannot be confused as conservative.
I like yours better, Fly. It’s where he and those like him belong.
This guy Olsen has been a putz for quite some time.
On same-sex-marriage: The gays are not interested in the marriage or serving in US Military. What they want is for Government (which we conservatives “love” so much) to validate their life style, which they themselves know is perverted. That’s why they are looking for a marriage license, and they look at it as a Being Gay License.
However, all that being true, the problem remains is that our government already have managed to mess up the Marriage even not counting the perverts, just like our Gov manages to screw up everything else! What is marriage? its 2 people man and a woman intending to live together,to have relationship together, have children together. Why should government have any say with whom and how I sleep who I love, with whom I have children? marriage fundamentally is between 2 people and G-D, not government. Marriage should have no effect on how much you paying in taxes to IRS, if you able to get some insurance policy, or visit a person in a hospital, or even how your assets are shared. Government should get out of marriage business, and only priests or Rabbis should deal with marriage. You wanna get married Mazel Tov! Go to Rabbi and he will say a blessing give you a pretty piece of paper which you can nail to the wall, you wanna marry a cow, all the best find a (Reform) rabbi and you will be married. What Gov has to do with any of it?! if you want to set up shared property, spousoul support etc.. you register yourself as partnership with the Government. You don’t have to have sex to be in a partnership, roommates can be in civil partnership to share assets, maybe they bought a house together,or a car. Another words the social aspect of marriage should be domain of the Church while the financial should be domain of Government,and it should not be called marriage but partnership,Corporation,etc..
The Gays are just trying to exploit a broken system for their own political ends, however that doesn’t change the fact that the marriage system is broken.
I also lived in NYC, DC, LA and even abroad - and have had homosexual house-mates, classmates and friends, particularly during my younger school years, when one couldn't pick and choose for cheap housing. Some were the nasty types you mentioned, but I know others who were/are kind, decent people. Regardless, ALL seemed to suffer greatly because of their homosexuality (or in conjunction with it). Mental illness, drug/alcohol addition, sexual promiscuity, disease, gay violence and sick brutality, betrayal - some or all of these afflict every homosexual I know. It is very said, and is truly a curse which they suffer under. The push to normalize this for society is something which can only be considered evil.
Putting a penis into a mans ass and getting off is not natural, healthy or normal and it certainly make us have to change laws to make you think you’re married.
Also no rights were taken away from homo’s they can marry just like us normal folk, we have to marry the opposite sex, we have to have one spouse, yea just like homosexuals
so stop trolling, seek mental help for your problem and then you can join the rest of normal healthy society
All of those arguments would apply equally to polygamy.
Plenty of people who worked for Reagan turned into leftists, and none of the Bushes have really been all that conservative.
Hes a big-time conservative, Goldwater guy...he has a different legal perspective on gay rights, however.
What is it with the RINOs and Goldwater?
Goldwater was an ABSOLUTE FAILURE as a candidate. Have you noticed that Democrats NEVER try to compare themselves to McGovern, Mondale or Dukakis, Republicans would be wise to do the same with Goldwater. Goldwater was a libertarian and lost in a landslide. Reagan understood that conservatism REQUIRES social conservatism and he won two landslides.
Sees it as a rights issue, not a morality issue.
You really have it in for social conservatives don't you.
Homosexuals have EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHTS to get married that everyone else does and they always have. There has NEVER BEEN A LAW in the United States that barred homosexuals from getting married.
magritte, I'm really starting to think that you are on the wrong forum.
he has been going to those north east DC beltway elitist cocktail parties far too many times and now have become friends with many of these cross dressers and homosexuals and now thinks he has to give up morals and the conservative view to help his new found friends.
Maybe he should hang out with them when they go to their freak parades, their homo parties and bars and see how they really are and how perverted they are.
Maybe Ted can then see that he is being lied to by these poeple so they can use him for their propaganda
Gosh! This is the first time I’ve heard the “conservative” argument for gay marriage! It certainly changed my mind. Who would have ever thought it? All a sodomite has to do is marry and it’s all good! /s
I had many gay men friends as a youth. But I’ve seen a change in the theatre world that frightens me. They now self-segregate at parties, vilify women openly and bar women from some productions. The new (and horribly failed) “On a Clear Day You Can See Forever,” is a case in point. The young ones - like most Americans - know nothing of culture and yet they are controlling the culture.
I knew. I was just wondering how many times the faggot was going to come back and post the same garbage.
she died sadly and he started to attend the beltway elitist cocktail parties where he met many of these homosexuals and cross dressers or their supporters in the MSM and now has bought in their propaganda.
Homosexuals will join churches, school group;s etc just to get their agenda advanced.
They find people in those groups, become friends with them and then they tell their new pals after a few months that they’re homosexual and just want to love and be left alone.
Their new pals then think they have to stand side by side with their new homo pal and in the meantime they give up their morals and views to accommodate the homosexual agenda.
Look at the AZ sheriff who moved from MA, got into a position of power and now some on the right will have no problem with the homo agenda because they became friends of this sheriff
One of the "new castrati", as Rush calls them, is on parade once again, in spades. bttt
"....You must understand that the radical wants to be intoxicated -- with outrage, with self-righteous anger, with smugness, with superiority, with iconoclasm, with fear (e.g., of "domestic spying," or the "theofascistic takeover of the nation"), with "injustice." Like any other drug, radicalism is addictive because of the feelings it engenders. This, I think, explains why so many of my generation refuse to grow up -- because they are literlly addicted to the feelings produced by radicalism.
For example, they do not want racism to be over. For a white liberal, it gives such an intoxicating feeling of being on the side of righteousness, that it's impossible for them to let it go. For you [people] of color out there, you probably realize that every white liberal condescendingly imagines that he is noble Atticus Finch, and that you are poor helpless Tom Robinson.
And I imagine that all the racial grievance hustlers -- if they aren't just outright sociopaths, like Al Sharpton -- imagine that white people give a lot of thought to race, when they actually couldn't care less (at least conservatives). Personally, I'd never think about race if liberals weren't obsessed with it.
By the way, a boneheaded -- and intoxicated -- commenter compared opposition to the redefinition of marriage to racism. But opposition to "gay marriage" isn't learned. Rather, it is innate. Anyone with a rightly ordered soul is naturally opposed to it. Rather, they have to unlearn what is natural and normal in order to be passionately pro-homosexual marriage.
I well remember being "homophobic" as a boy, but I was never racist. But this innocent homophobia wasn't learned. In fact, I had no idea what a homosexual was. Rather, it was just the innate knowledge that boys should act like boys -- that there was an ideal to which we should aspire. Boys who didn't were suspect. It was a kind of mutual self-policing, like fighting in the NHL.
In fact, it's a little perverse to even call it "homophobia." Rather, it was really just about learning The Art of Manliness , which all boys need to do -- especially today, when manliness is opposed on all sides by passive-aggressive liberal wimps for whom whining is a virtue. Marriage is one of the principle ways that boys become men. Therefore, it is no surprise that liberals want to undermine it.
That is the real agenda behind the intoxicated fury to redefine the institution. I think also that homosexuals imagine that "marrying" would allow them to "grow up," when that is hardly the problem. More often than not, homosexual behavior is specifically a rebellion against growing up, and all it implies. I don't have time to explain, but again, there is a lot of good information at NARTH for the bi-curious.
In contrast, racism must be learned. Yes, I know it is ubiquitous, but it is nevertheless learned. It is really about cultural difference, and race is simply a handy marker for this. .... The left also doesn't want poverty to end, because this too would eliminate the cause of their righteous indignation. Otherwise they would define poverty in absolute instead of relative terms. So long as they define it in relative terms, a certain fixed percentage of the population will always be "poor," no matter how fat and affluent. (On his program yesterday, Dennis Prager had an economist who explained this in an extremely lucid and sober manner; can't think of his name.) ....
Any form of radicalism is given force and momentum by the intoxicated desire to "change everything utterly at a single stroke. And it is this fever to *change* everything utterly at a single stroke which gave birth to the demon of class hatred, atheism, disdain for the past, and material interest being placed above all else, which is now making the rounds in the world." You see how it works? The ideology legitimizes the intoxicated expression of envy, anger, murder, whatever. It is what allowed Bill Ayers, for example, to want to attempt mass murder in good conscience. When you're full of that much righteous rage, what else can you do? He still has no regrets, because he is still drunk. But like all drunks, he stays drunk in order to avoid the pain of regret -- regret for a wasted life spent wasted on ideology."
BKO would not be happy with Ted.
marriage is a step in their agenda and I wish more on the right would see this .
They can marry like us, we have to marry the opposite sex , they have to marry the opposite sex.
We have to have one spouse they have to have one spouse.
They have no rights taken away what so ever.
magritte, I’m really starting to think that you are on the wrong forum.
That’s because you don’t read for comprehension well:
Several posters didn’t have a clue who Theodore B. Olson was. This is a conservative forum. Olson has been a conservative figure for 40 frickin’ years. I informed those who did not know who he was to give them some background for the comments that were going to be posted.
I posted my direct thoughts about the issue in a separate post, #34.
PS: I’ll match up my conservative bonafides against yours anytime, sport.
Do you believe that states should be allowed to legalize same-sex "marriage"?
No one to my knowledge prevents sodomites from engaging in their perversion. As for the equal rights aspect, a same sex relationship cannot reasonably be considered the same as a heterosexual union for the simple reason that they are literally not the same. A man/man relationship, for example, cannot become one, i.e. produce a child. There is no union, just two people using each other to masturbate. Now why should we grant mutual masturbation the same protections as heterosexual unions? Answer: we shouldn’t, because they are not equal relationships.
Conservatives do not support homosexual “marriage”.
Goldwater, Olson and Clint Eastwood all suffer/suffered from the same disease...Liberal New Young Wife Syndrome. There is no cure.
Olson’s argument boils down to the classic “gays can’t help it if they are gay” argument. The equal rights component is intended to link it with discrimination against women and minorities. That’s the fatal flaw against his argument, because sexual behavior is not on the equal plane with REAL discrimination.
The danger here is that Olson, regardless of the more limited intellects on this thread, is still considered a very important conservative mind and automatically gets a decent hearing for his thoughts because of that. States need to continue to exercise their rights to determine who can be married. DOMA-style amendments are needed to protect against these kind of arguments
That cat has a scary expression.
I wonder if this is the previously banned flowerplough, he used to do the exact same thing. Post pro-fag stuff but not reply on the thread.
He did it here yesterday, I was waiting for him to surface and reply but he hadn’t yet:
Gotta be the best ZOT ever, that is one bad super kitty !
magritte has been anti-conservative since I first noticed him. Haven’t been able to figure out if he’s just strongly pro-RINO or an actual leftist. I do think he’s playing for the wrong team definitely, and not nice about it either.
I wouldn’t want her to be mad at me!
magritte has been anti-conservative since I first noticed him. Havent been able to figure out if hes just strongly pro-RINO or an actual leftist. I do think hes playing for the wrong team definitely, and not nice about it either.
Lol !! Yer hilarious, you lovable goof. No offense, but I don’t notice you much. Sorry. I just prefer posters with more substance.
Olson is four times married, twice divorced. It is difficult to see where he gets his moral imperative to speak about traditional marriage when he does not honor his own covenant.
You also think you’re the smartest person in the room. You remind me of Ivy League graduates, esp. those with extra degress. Piled Higher and Deeper.
Wasn't he a contributing writer to the Bullwinkle cartoon series?
Olson has been a conservative figure for 40 frickin years.
Yep, the time frame fits. He wrote Bullwinkle cartoons.
Ill match up my conservative bonafides against yours anytime, sport.
Psst.. If you have to brag about your "bonafides" on the internet, it means that you have none.
It's just that our American rights came from God, not mankind; and the intentions of the Founders were that those rights would come from Nature and Nature's God, not from test-tubes, turkey basters, the ACLU or Doctor Evil.
And just think this creepy liberal Ted Olson was George W. Bush’s Solicitor General. Now he goes before the Supreme Court on the Constitionality of sodomite marriage. With “republicans” like this RINO, who needs liberal democrats.
Think the Father of our country would have Ted Olson arguing for sodomite marriage before the highest court in the land.
While the issue of homosexuals in the military has only recently become a point of great public controversy, it is not a new issue; it derives its roots from the time of the military’s inception. George Washington, the nation’s first Commander-in-Chief, held a strong opinion on this subject and gave a clear statement of his views on it in his general orders for March 14, 1778:
At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be dismiss’d [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; The drummers and fifers [are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose. 1
You trolls know better than to come here and try this ClownPosse crap.
Why yes, if bragging equaled credentials, DannyH would be president material.
Wonderful post. Thanks!
Aw, isn’t that cute.
Someone trying to be clever.
Do a trick for me, dance! Dance!
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . . don't be shy.
The “last major civil rights milestone?????” What about interspecies activity? What about twelvesomes??? What about polygamy??? TOGA!!! TOGA!!! Puhleeze!
Hi Darkwing104! Love the new graphic.
...sniff...sob...he said I have no substance...SOB....sniff...