Same-sex marriage gains GOP support (1 Viewer)

[Cold Highway]

"Our nation is at a crossroads, and conservatives are trying to rally together to turn back the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda," said Chris Barron, chairman of GOProud, a gay Republican group. "That's why we've seen people like Glenn Beck saying, 'Look, same-sex marriage isn't hurting anybody.' Because he sees a need to create a broad-based conservative movement."

Beck, a tea party favorite, recently told fellow Fox talk show host Bill O'Reilly that gay marriage was not "a threat to the country" and that marriage is a religious, not a governmental, issue.

Its an election year, so expect the personal liberty talk but when they get the seats of power it will be same ol statist bull****.

Same-sex marriage gains GOP support

 

[cpwill]

as i've said before, and will say again; if the Republican Party polled as popularly as traditional marriage does (winning every state now where it's been put to the will of the people); they would never be out of power. the notion that we need to be willing to turn a foundation of our society on it's head in order to win the surely infetestimable sliver of the population who is a) a homosexual marriage advocate single-issue voter and b) not already guaranteed to vote Democrat is simply mathematically untenable, when compared to the vast numbers of social conservatives that we would be losing.

 

[R. Shackleferd]

"Marriage" shouldn't even be something that's granted by the State. There's nothing "family values" about marriage being provided by the State and gays WOULD get married if marriage wasn't legally defined and provided by the state.

 

[Cold Highway]

as i've said before, and will say again; if the Republican Party polled as popularly as traditional marriage does (winning every state now where it's been put to the will of the people); they would never be out of power. the notion that we need to be willing to turn a foundation of our society on it's head in order to win the surely infetestimable sliver of the population who is a) a homosexual marriage advocate single-issue voter and b) not already guaranteed to vote Democrat is simply mathematically untenable, when compared to the vast numbers of social conservatives that we would be losing.

Social and Religious cons have yet to come up with any type of evidence that shows two men or two women getting married somehow destroys society other than they dont like it.

 

[Hoplite]

as i've said before, and will say again; if the Republican Party polled as popularly as traditional marriage does (winning every state now where it's been put to the will of the people); they would never be out of power. the notion that we need to be willing to turn a foundation of our society on it's head in order to win the surely infetestimable sliver of the population who is a) a homosexual marriage advocate single-issue voter and b) not already guaranteed to vote Democrat is simply mathematically untenable, when compared to the vast numbers of social conservatives that we would be losing.

Where are all these social conservatives? Gay marriage is gaining ground across the country. Most of the motions for it that are defeated are not based on logical arguments against gay marriage, Prop 8 was partially supported by advocates claiming that the government would shut down any church that refused to marry gay people. Despite being a ludicrously stupid and ultimately false argument, it scared a lot of people.

 

[cpwill]

Social and Religious cons have yet to come up with any type of evidence that shows two men or two women getting married somehow destroys society other than they dont like it.

that's a different thread entirely. the point here is that the Republican Party loses far more votes than it gains (if indeed it gains any) by coming out in favor of expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships.

 

[cpwill]

Where are all these social conservatives? Gay marriage is gaining ground across the country.

excuse me? it's been defeated in even the bluest of states; gay marriage isn't 'gaining ground across the country', it's found sympathetic judges willing to piss off the people by overruling them.

Most of the motions for it that are defeated are not based on logical arguments against gay marriage, Prop 8 was partially supported by advocates claiming that the government would shut down any church that refused to marry gay people. Despite being a ludicrously stupid and ultimately false argument, it scared a lot of people.

and if the civil rights amendment ever leads to quotas i'll eat my hat, eh?

 

[Hoplite]

excuse me? it's been defeated in even the bluest of states; gay marriage isn't 'gaining ground across the country', it's found sympathetic judges willing to piss off the people by overruling them.

Really? Because last I checked, more and more states are rescinding bans on same-sex marriage. And, FYI, people's rights are not up for popular vote and judges who DO THEIR JOBS by strike these ridiculous bans down are..y'know, doing their jobs.

and if the civil rights amendment ever leads to quotas i'll eat my hat, eh?

Cut the crap. There's a long ****ing road between affirmative action and black boots kicking down church doors and you know it.

Most of these bans were campaigned the same way Prop 8 was; with some spooky language hinting that there was some sort of sinister outcome BESIDES you actually having to treat gay people like people. Fun favorites included "They're going to teach our kids to be gay" "They will legalize prostitution" "They will shut down churches that dont marry gay people" "Gay partners will receive more marriage benefits than straight people" etc etc.

I mean, seriously, take a look at this crap
Protect Marriage - Yes on 8 » Why Marriage Matters

ONE paragraph explaining why gay marriage should be made illegal and the entire argument boils down to "We want it, so we should get it"

The rest of it is scary reasons and consequences of what will happen if you dont ban gay marriage.


Your social conservatives need to get off their intellectual asses and actually make a decent argument rather than throw legal temper tantrums.

 

[Orion]

I disagree with all of you.

The issue of marriage should take a back seat to other political issues. There are much bigger fish to fry. If people are trying to get votes based on a hot button issue like gay marriage, I wouldn't vote for them. I'd rather hear what they think about things like the state of the economy, foreign policy, etc.

 

[Barbbtx]

Where are all these social conservatives? Gay marriage is gaining ground across the country. Most of the motions for it that are defeated are not based on logical arguments against gay marriage, Prop 8 was partially supported by advocates claiming that the government would shut down any church that refused to marry gay people. Despite being a ludicrously stupid and ultimately false argument, it scared a lot of people.

I forget where (not in the USA)
But because of gays having the right to adopt (which I think is a good thing) There are problems with Catholic orphanages not wanting to adopt to gays. They may have to stop doing adoptions, because the law doesn't allow them to be exempt.
Sometimes when we think we are doing something good something not so good comes out of it.

 

[Hoplite]

I disagree with all of you.

The issue of marriage should take a back seat to other political issues. There are much bigger fish to fry. If people are trying to get votes based on a hot button issue like gay marriage, I wouldn't vote for them. I'd rather hear what they think about things like the state of the economy, foreign policy, etc.

Perhaps, but ending the bans on gay marriage doesn't cost us anything, it doesn't take implementation time, it doesn't hurt anybody, it's a step for social justice that virtually every other country that can put one brick on top of another has taken...I dont see why we shouldn't as well. I agree that it shouldn't be made a MAIN issue, but I dont think it should be simply dismissed or backseated because it isn't curing AIDS babies or stopping terrorism.

I forget where (not in the USA)
But because of gays having the right to adopt (which I think is a good thing) There are problems with Catholic orphanages not wanting to adopt to gays. They may have to stop doing adoptions, because the law doesn't allow them to be exempt.
Sometimes when we think we are doing something good something not so good comes out of it.

So...because a certain organization is socially backward...we should follow THAT line of thinking to avoid the SMALLER negative consequences but which would allow a socially unjust situation to continue...? I'm confused why you're making this argument. It's unsupported, it's logically flawed....