Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Top Republican Pollster Advises Party To Embrace Gay Marriage
Mediaite ^ | May 12th, 2012 | Josh Feldman

Posted on 05/12/2012 7:44:19 AM PDT by markomalley

A memo sent out by a Republican pollster has been making the rounds online for its conclusion that the party needs to embrace gay marriage as part of its platform because of recent trends showing increased support for this important social issue. Jan van Lohuizen, who worked as a pollster for George W. Bush in 2004, made the case that the GOP should be fighting for gay marriage as a conservative issue, by emphasizing that “freedom means freedom for everyone.”

The memo contains polling data showing that not only is support of gay marriage steadily increasing with the American people at large, but that a majority of Republicans now support “extending basic legal protections to gays and lesbians” like the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and hospital visitation rights for gay and lesbian partners. Van Lohuizen stresses that this position does not mean gays and lesbians would be given special treatment, but instead ensures they are given the same protections under the law as everyone else.

“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.”

He also explains how the GOP can frame support of gay marriage as a conservative issue.

“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.”



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012polls; 2012rncplatform; gope; homosexualagenda; janvanlohuizen; moralabsolutes; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-170 next last
To: anoldafvet
LWhy don’t we all just register as democrat/communists and be done with it?

Heck yes. Then we can become the nation that Carroll Quigley (sp) Bubbas mentor at Georgetown, wrote that the 2 parties should come together so as any election there will be no disparity. Of course it must come together as this dem/commie group. See how wonderful things could be - birds chirping, children dancing around the trees,etc.

101 posted on 05/12/2012 11:16:15 AM PDT by Digger (If RINO is your selection then failure is your election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf
“You sound like the only problem you have with queer marriage is that it is likely to regress to plural marriage, maybe you wrote it wrong but there is no comparison.”

Wrong, I was only saying what will happen if the sick bastards get anything changed from the current standard.

It is only a way to explain to the idiots that nothing but one Man, one Woman marriage can ever be acceptable, no queer unions, no queer partnerships.

102 posted on 05/12/2012 11:21:04 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Two days ago the Washington Post ran an article identifying virtually all of Romney’s big money guys as being supporters of gay marriage, et al. I referenced that article last evening ~ it’s at

We all now how much we can believe anything in the Washington Post.

LOL

103 posted on 05/12/2012 11:21:47 AM PDT by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

no queer unions, no queer partnerships.


I sure will agree with you on that.


104 posted on 05/12/2012 11:32:50 AM PDT by ravenwolf (reIf you believe that Nero was the anti-Christ, and among othJust a bit of the long list of proofsre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

I would like to get the government out of the income tax business too.


105 posted on 05/12/2012 11:36:16 AM PDT by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: struggle

shows what low iq he has. that obama not only thinks abortion is ok, but that if baby survives the attempt to kill it, it’s ok to toss it in a closet and let it starve to death or whatever should have proved to him that obama never really believed in God.


106 posted on 05/12/2012 11:37:08 AM PDT by SendShaqtoIraq
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

” I’ve never even seen a homosexual who was “gay”. They are all always pissed off about something.”

Exactly. Gay means happy, queer means odd. If they don’t like being called queer they can call themselves ‘Odds’.


107 posted on 05/12/2012 11:39:38 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

If the G.O.P. bscks homosexual “marriage”, I am out of the
Republican Party.


108 posted on 05/12/2012 11:50:51 AM PDT by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf

If you thought anything different, you have never read my posts on the subject or my ‘about’ page.


109 posted on 05/12/2012 11:56:04 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: sagar
Frankly, arguments like these are not helping. First, they will point out that animal sex is different than human. Second, since you are too fixated on the anal part, which will be ridiculed. Third, you assume sex is about “producing” babies, which will get your labeled as a nut, fair or not.

Frankly, sugar, none of YOUR arguments hold water, with us, or with the electorate. Gay sex is equivalent to animal sex; it's anal, that's all it is; yes, sex IS about producing babies, and NO, we are not Paul supporters..

110 posted on 05/12/2012 12:34:53 PM PDT by Kennard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
This fellow may be queer but in an interview from last July he did have some interesting things to say about Willard:

5. Everyone says that Mitt Romney is the front-runner, but no one (in their heart of hearts) thinks he “fits” as a GOP presidential nominee. What's your take on Romney? Can he win? What are his strengths and weaknesses as we head into the primary season?

(Up front is the really interesting bits of grain. Willard is essential a ‘pitchman’ he doesn't believe in anything just in making the sale. So we have the equivalent of a high level form of time share salesman about to clinch the GOP nomination.)

JVL: I worked for the Romney campaign 4 years ago and it was one of the worst if not the worst campaign experiences I’ve had. I personally liked (and like) Romney, and he’s clearly very bright, but I came to the conclusion that to be a successful venture capitalist you mostly have to be a great pitchman, much more so than a great manager.

Romney clearly is a good pitchman, and I think that in ’08 this was more a liability than an asset: he sounded as convincing telling people he was pro-choice (on tape in his campaign for Senate against Kennedy) as he sounded telling people he was pro-life 4 years ago. That made a lot of people very nervous. It might have been survivable if he switched on just one issue, but he switched on so many that he lost his credibility. I think the damage has proven to be lasting.

In his current campaign he made the right decision to try to become the leading economic expert in the field. However, if you read what he actually says it sound very hollow and mostly consists of safe conservative dogma; if he has said something original on the economy I missed it. I do think he will be a strong candidate against the President if he manages to get out of the primaries, but whether he does remains to be seen.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-12/politics/30075801_1_2nd-debate-straw-poll-michele-bachmann/2#ixzz1ugaDxclW

111 posted on 05/12/2012 12:38:59 PM PDT by robowombat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

No, we should not celebrate two people who are taking themselves out of he gene pool while publically embracing a lifestyle that will take 25 years off their life span.


112 posted on 05/12/2012 1:34:46 PM PDT by rwilson99 (Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

No, we should not celebrate two people who are taking themselves out of he gene pool while publically embracing a lifestyle that will take 25 years off their life span.


113 posted on 05/12/2012 1:34:58 PM PDT by rwilson99 (Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

No, we should not celebrate two people who are taking themselves out of he gene pool while publically embracing a lifestyle that will take 25 years off their life span.


114 posted on 05/12/2012 1:34:58 PM PDT by rwilson99 (Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Jan van Lohuizen, who worked as a pollster for George W. Bush in 2004 ...

Never heard of him.

Is he at the "Lovenstein Institute"?

“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.”

Ummmm ... you know that doesn't mean he supports gay marriage, don't you?

115 posted on 05/12/2012 1:48:14 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

If you thought anything different, you have never read my posts on the subject or my ‘about’ page.


No, i did not think any thing at all.


116 posted on 05/12/2012 2:18:20 PM PDT by ravenwolf (reIf you believe that Nero was the anti-Christ, and among othJust a bit of the long list of proofsre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

“In other words, ‘Jan van Lohuizen’ is gay and he wants conservatives to go against their morals and values to appease his lifestyle choice.”

Exactly.


117 posted on 05/12/2012 2:26:03 PM PDT by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pieceofthepuzzle

Whoa there! You make too much sense. The GOPe will thus ignore it.


118 posted on 05/12/2012 2:33:30 PM PDT by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

A foreshadowing of Mitt Romney’s Republican Party. Had enough yet?


119 posted on 05/12/2012 2:35:25 PM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (Obama vs. Romney: Zero x Zero = Zero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x

They say they support equality under the law, but invariably they don’t extend such concern to unborn people.


120 posted on 05/12/2012 2:42:14 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (We're not Republicans or Democrats. We're Americans. Visit SelfGovernment.US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: upcountryhorseman

“If the G.O.P. bscks homosexual ‘marriage’, I am out of the
Republican Party.”

You and me, both.


121 posted on 05/12/2012 2:53:02 PM PDT by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

If they do that, I WILL stay home.


122 posted on 05/12/2012 3:01:48 PM PDT by j_tull (Massachusetts once lead the American Revolution. Under Mitt Romney, it lead its demise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Homosexuals do not just want gay marriage because they want to get married. The list of “rights” it affords is so minor, it would be totally irrational for anyone to think it is worth this kind of hubbub.

They want the term “marriage” because it fundamentally institutionalizes their relationships as equal to male/female couples in every way and in every aspect of the law, the culture and the society.

The most dangerous aspect to this is probably how “marriage” would now be taught in the schools to the youngest children. After this, by law, any judge would say the schools must now teach that marrying the same sex cannot be spoken about or taught any differently than is marrying someone of the opposite sex. Which means kids would now have to be taught that marriage means you get to enter into a committed relationship with either a male or female, whichever one they choose.

It’s hard to believe this would not fundamentally change a child’s upbringing and make them much more likely to experiment with same-sex attraction and relationships. It’s hard to imagine how a pre-pubescent child, like a boy who thinks girls are “icky” would react. Many children might spend years thinking they’re going to grow up to marry their best same-sex friend and even start showing signs of romantic affection to them.

Certainly all school socials, functions, dances and proms would now have to openly promote and encourage same-sex relationships on an equal footing, just as sexual education classes would. We’ve seen the hints of this kind of indoctrination into the lifestyle show up in education in the most liberal areas. But with same-sex marriage legalized, the almost guaranteed next step is that the courts would order any and all schools to put this type of same-sex relationship education into their curriculum.

For conservatives to think that issue begins and ends at “two people who love each other getting married” would a huge mistake. To not talk about the much broader cultural and legal changes that same-sex marriage would inevitably lead to will probably mean losing on this issue and setting up traditional society for one of the most extreme, unprecedented, and risky changes that has ever taken place in our country.


123 posted on 05/12/2012 3:14:41 PM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Fag RINOs? What other deviltry will they bring us?


124 posted on 05/12/2012 3:19:33 PM PDT by Candor7 (Obama fascist info....http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spintreebob
Contraception, gay marriage, global warming, war in the Sudan, polar bears and baby seals are distractions we should not get into either pro or con.

LOL, absolutely ludicrous. You're saying we should not argue against the propaganda lefties are engaged in to damage the country on every possible front? When we don't engage and address their arguments, we lose. You can't win if you're not at the table. Not to mention, it sounds like you only want Republicans to be able to win when the economy is bad. You seem to think we're incapable of winning on any other single issue. You couldn't be more wrong. These are stronger issues for us because the public is behind common sense. They are often also behind getting a big safety net when the economy is bad, which is why it's very hard to defeat liberals on the economy and always has been. You couldn't be helping the liberals more than if you were one of their plants come here to swat us.

125 posted on 05/12/2012 3:21:04 PM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sagar
I think the logical and valid argument against homosexual marriage is what Ron Paul proposes. Just get rid of the government involvement in marriage! When you hand the marriage power back to the churches/religious groups, they will define what it is. And homo groups’ definition of their own version of the marriage will be pointless.

Like most of Ron Paul's ideas, it makes no practical sense. All those issues of adoption, hospital visitation, privacy, what happens to assets in divorce, child custody, etc., would still need to be handled by law. At best your plan would result in equal civil unions being created for any kind of couple, probably even incestuous relationships if they wanted it. Otherwise the "civil union" law would need to say it only applies to heterosexual couples, in which case we're back to the same old debate and we just have to "hope" people don't keep calling it marriage just because it's an easier term to use.

126 posted on 05/12/2012 3:24:24 PM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: pieceofthepuzzle
I agree that the GOP should not debate this issue. They should say, that there are very important public issues that need to be addressed (e.g. economy etc.) and that the private sexual lives of American citizens is not an issue for the government or politicians.

This isn't ABOUT private sexual lives, dimwit. That issue was settled by the Supreme Court in the Texas case years ago. This is about THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. Wake up and get a clue.

127 posted on 05/12/2012 3:25:51 PM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Two days ago the Washington Post ran an article identifying virtually all of Romney’s big money guys as being supporters of gay marriage, et al.

Gay marriage is THE stealth issue in this campaign. Mitt saying the election is "about the economy" is just another of his and the RNC's and the RINO media's Big Lies. Gay marriage is why Newt and Santorum why savaged by Drudge and FOX News. It's why the party wanted Mitt. It's why Obama made his move this week. Mitt was gathering stealth gay support and the Democrats knew it. This was Obama's way of trying to get that support on his side. That's why the RNC and Mitt seem unhappy at what Obama did, when it looks like a huge gaffe on Obama's part to the base. The RNC and Mitt do not want to talk about opposing gay marriage because they don't oppose it and they want the money and votes of people who do support it. They hate the fact that Obama moved to the left of them on the issue and that they can't match his move without alienating the base.

128 posted on 05/12/2012 3:29:59 PM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6

So a man and woman, husband and wife, can’t have anal or oral sex because it doesn’t produce babies? Is that what you are saying?


129 posted on 05/12/2012 3:33:05 PM PDT by turn_to
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
Trying to mate with another male’s anal canal is as insane as trying to mate with a knothole or cat

There's a reason they are called queers. If that isn't queer, I don't know what is.

Not a good argument to use. Heterosexual couples engage in oral and anal sex as well. If you get asked about that and say you oppose that as well, then it undermines the argument against same-sex marriage by looking like you have a much broader agenda. Same-sex marriage would be wrong even for a celibate couple because of the example it sets and confusion it causes to children and how it undermines the traditional, biological family structure, which is an absolutely necessary social construction to tame the worst instincts of man and promote public health and economic well-being.

130 posted on 05/12/2012 3:35:25 PM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
It is only a way to explain to the idiots that nothing but one Man, one Woman marriage can ever be acceptable, no queer unions, no queer partnerships.

Bottom line is people can already engage in any relationship they want legally. Marriage says we are encouraging a certain type of relationship with special benefits because we believe it's good for society. It is not a right, it's a privilege that's voluntarily approved of by the voters.

131 posted on 05/12/2012 3:44:43 PM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

get george soros OUT OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY! and all evil for that matter. My God Help us. Fall on your knees and humble yourself before our Lord for the sake of our Nation if for no other reason.


132 posted on 05/12/2012 3:51:29 PM PDT by thesaleboat (Pray The Rosary Daily (Our Lady, July 13, 1917))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

From Politico. What a shock.

This guy has his own polling firm in Houston. Anyone ever heard of him before?

Does anyone give a damn what he might think?

Doubt it....


133 posted on 05/12/2012 3:53:30 PM PDT by A.Hun (Common sense is no longer common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat

Has van Lohuizen ever identified his “husband?”


134 posted on 05/12/2012 3:56:20 PM PDT by BlackElk (Romney = Obama = Moloch = Obama = Romney = Moloch = Romney = Obama, Etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Turns out this pollster has been pushing this since at least July 2011. A previous “memo” he sent is linked below.

“The remarkable surge over the last two years can’t be explained by generational change alone. It suggests that people across the political spectrum are rethinking their
positions—and deciding in favor of the freedom to marry.” Republican pollster Dr. Jan van Lohuizen, July 2011

A solid and rapidly diversifying majority of the American public now supports the freedom to marry.

2011 analysis of six national polls conducted by Joel Benenson, President of Benenson Strategy Group and lead pollster to President Barack Obama, and Dr. Jan van Lohuizen, President of Voter Consumer Research and former pollster to President George W. Bush.

http://freemarry.3cdn.net/5ae85613318ade1b2e_8dm6bnq72.pdf


135 posted on 05/12/2012 3:57:50 PM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sagar; blueunicorn6
sagar:

Actually, it seems obvious that it is the faggots/perverts who are "fixated on the anal part." Normal humans are quite repelled by the idea of Mr. Happy roaming the Hershey Highway. But you knew that.

blueunicorn6:

Way to go! High fives!!!

136 posted on 05/12/2012 4:03:06 PM PDT by BlackElk (Romney = Obama = Moloch = Obama = Romney = Moloch = Romney = Obama, Etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
Not a good argument to use. Heterosexual couples engage in oral and anal sex as well, then it undermines the argument against same-sex marriage by looking like you have a much broader agenda.

Male penis, male anus is the queer part.

137 posted on 05/12/2012 4:05:29 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (Romney vs. Obama? One of them has to lose, I'll rejoice in that fact, whichever it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

LOL, more for his resume...leading RINO pollster.

http://mittromneycentral.com/2007/04/09/washpost-romneys-inner-circle/

WashPost: Romney’s Inner Circle

Jan van Lohuizen: If you don’t know who van Lohuizen is, that’s just how he likes it. One of the lowest-profile pollsters in politics, van Lohuizen is also one of the most highly regarded. He was a key member of the Bush polling team in 2004 and has had a hand in any number of major GOP victories, including victories by Govs. Charlie Crist (R-Fla.) and Arnold Schwarzenegger’s (R-Calif.) last November.


138 posted on 05/12/2012 4:08:57 PM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Irish Eyes

This is a story to be denied or admitted to by Romney. If his big money men were gay people intent on an agenda it’s long overdue for him to admit to it ~ and to his wife as well.


139 posted on 05/12/2012 4:36:49 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: turn_to; Graybeard58; BlackElk; sagar; blueunicorn6; JediJones; Antoninus; Lazlo in PA; writer33; ..
129 posted on Sat May 12 2012 17:33:05 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by turn_to: “So a man and woman, husband and wife, can’t have anal or oral sex because it doesn’t produce babies? Is that what you are saying?”

Have we degenerated so far in the conservative movement that I need to be explaining on a conservative website why normal people don't do that stuff?

Put bluntly, the parts don't fit. If you like packing fudge with your wife, please don't tell us about it. That stuff, just like Bill Clinton's escapades with Monica Lewinski, quite literally makes me want to vomit. It shouldn't be discussed in public, but our society has gotten so bad that it has become acceptable in too many circles.

By the way, deviant sexual intercourse such as that used to be illegal, and it scandalized the Congress not that many years ago when a Mafia girlfriend, when asked in a Congressional hearing why she was liked by Mafiosi, said the reason why was that she gave good oral sex (using different words, of course).

I've got bigger things to worry about than criminalizing private activities between husbands and wives and I prefer to keep the focus on promoting marriage, which **IS** key to preserving society by transmitting cultural values from one generation to another. However, things like anal and oral sex ought not even to be discussed in places where people aren't perverts.

Let's remember that things could be a lot worse than they are in the modern American conservative movement. Imagine what it would be like to be in France, where

1) the moderate conservative is a multiple adulterer now married to a woman with her own serious moral problems,
2) the right-wing candidate is a woman who has been divorced twice and is now openly living with a man to whom she is not married, and
3) the Socialist who just won the presidency dumped his ex-live-in girlfriend shortly after she lost the presidential campaign in the last election for a new live-in girlfriend who he hasn't yet bothered to marry, either.

That's where we're going if we keep being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.

What would I do if I were a conservative patriotic Christian in France? I have no idea. What scares me is I have absolutely no doubt that a hundred years ago, any reasonably conservative American looking at our current American presidential candidates would have been just as disgusted as we are today looking at the French candidates for their presidency today. The frog and kettle seem to be boiling rather warmly now.

140 posted on 05/12/2012 5:36:55 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

A pollster named Jan huh ? I’m done .


141 posted on 05/12/2012 5:44:42 PM PDT by Ben Bolt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Time to fire gay pollsters.


142 posted on 05/12/2012 5:46:33 PM PDT by Theophilus (Not merely prolife, but prolific)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

and that person can piss off seeing as most of the country agrees to have just normal healthy natural marriage


143 posted on 05/12/2012 6:36:57 PM PDT by manc (Marriage is between one man and one woman,It's not a conservative view but a true American view)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: sagar
I think the logical and valid argument against homosexual marriage is what Ron Paul proposes. Just get rid of the government involvement in marriage! When you hand the marriage power back to the churches/religious groups, they will define what it is. And homo groups’ definition of their own version of the marriage will be pointless.

Ron Paul is wrong. What Ron Paul advocates is a government that abdicates its role to maintain social order premised upon inalienable truths. Ron Paul seeks marriage anarchy much like Libertarians seek a morally devoid anarchy unencumbered by any social order.

The problem is not government involvement -the problem is a government that ignores its place under the Creator and instead seeks to replace God with itself and redefine things such as marriage...

144 posted on 05/12/2012 8:32:14 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jpsb
Ron Paul is absolutely correct on this issue, get the state out of the marriage business.

Ron Paul is an idiot as are all Libertarians...

145 posted on 05/12/2012 8:42:41 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: turn_to
So a man and woman, husband and wife, can’t have anal or oral sex because it doesn’t produce babies? Is that what you are saying?

What we are saying is give peace a chance...

Actually, what premises what you are saying is exactly what premises what leftist scumbags are saying...

The government promotes order and the common good. Children and families that produce children contribute to the common good. As such, the government promotes the environment and provides benefits and privilege at the behest of the people to married couples... NOT because married people are forced to produce children but because they can.

Which is COMPLETELY the point as to why government involves itself in any way with marriage --it is ONLY a male and female that CAN procreate. Government does NOT force people to have children. Choosing not to have children does not diminish the possibility that children can be conceived...

HOWEVER, two metrosexual critical thinking RINO's will NEVER and can NEVER procreate so why should society subsidize such selfish anal explorers?

P.S. Go back to DU.

146 posted on 05/12/2012 9:08:19 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: JediJones; darrellmaurina; Graybeard58; blueunicorn6; Antoninus; Lazlo in PA; WPaCon; ...
Why is it no surprise at all that Jan van Lohuizen was involved in a campaign of Charlie Swish Crist or Ahhhhhnold Schwarzenkennedy who has never seen a moral he did not despise in public life including fidelity to his wife, and, of course, now working with Robamney who will take whatever "moral" position his electorate du jour may prefer.

Bill Buckley used to absolutely ridicule this sort of thing as "the Iron Rule that 50%+1 of the electorate just MUST be right" according to a certain kind of politician. Not the kind that any conservative should be caught alive or dead electing but, never mind.

I suspect you made an innocent mistake but are you really saying that Crist or Schwarzenkennedy won political victories in November, 2011???

There is a strong suspicion here that Mr. or Ms. van Lohuizen is taking other people's money to propagandize for his own desperately desired social agenda. It sure looks that way when you see how the electorate votes on the rump ranger issue every time it gets a chance.

As to "anal sex," it may be anal but it is hardly sex. Not between two men. Not between a man and a woman. Not between a man and his wife. Not between a man or woman and a barnyard animal or a household pet. Not between a man or woman and a space alien or ten of them.

The sad confusion between actual sexuality and a wide variety of perversions was the natural consequence of erecting chemical and/or mechanical barriers between the unitive and procreative functions of sexuality and the consequent popularization of fornication, adultery, and a wide variety of STDs. Ever meet a faithful married couple who, healthy at marriage, passed HIV, herpes, AIDS or whatever to one another? Neither have I. I suppose it is technically possible via that ever elusive excuse of the bad blood transfusion but I still have met none.

I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that our world and our relationships would be a lot better off to the extent that we were willing to limit our creative imaginations as to sexual activity to that boring old agenda that God established for married couples according to His Law and for His reasons. Call me old-fashioned. Just the kind of boy I am.

147 posted on 05/12/2012 10:54:42 PM PDT by BlackElk (Romney = Obama = Moloch = Obama = Romney = Moloch = Romney = Obama, Etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: turn_to; blueunicorn6; darrellmaurina
So a man and woman, husband and wife, can’t have anal or oral sex because it doesn’t produce babies? Is that what you are saying?

Are you saying a husband and a wife are not going to have vaginal sex, that it is not an option for them?

148 posted on 05/13/2012 2:46:08 AM PDT by xzins (Vote Goode not Evil (the lesser of 2 evils is still evil))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

If you knew those Frenchies you wouldn’t want to marry any of them either.


149 posted on 05/13/2012 4:24:18 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
In America, in colonial times, marriage was pretty much a matter of people, their churches, and their tribes, villages, or plantations.

The reasons for what is known as civil registration are varied, but in general it was felt, and then demonstrated, that knowing who was doing which to who, and where resulted in not just a more orderly society, but also a more peaceful society where children could be cared for more assuredly.

Not that civil registration was an all encompassing cure for social pathologies, but it helped concerned folks find where the need was greatest.

I"m sure Ron Paul has never thought the process all the way through.

150 posted on 05/13/2012 4:30:37 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-170 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson