About the author: Jennifer Thieme

Jennifer Thieme is the Director of Finance & Advancement for the Ruth Institute, a project of the National Organization for Marriage Education Fund. The Ruth Institute educates people as to why marriage must be defined as between one man, one woman, for life, for a truly free society to survive. Stay updated on the marriage issue by subscribing to the Ruth Institute newsletter, and instantly receive a free download, “Improve Your Marriage, Even If Your Spouse Doesn’t Change a Bit!” Signup here: ruthnewsletter.org

View all articles by Jennifer Thieme
  • Zardoz

    Is there a conservative argument for it? Sort of.

    What gays argue for is NOT the right to “marry” — they already have that, and they can go get “married” with whatever ceremony they like, in whatever homosexual church they can find to perform it. Gays argue for governmental RECOGNITION of their “marriage”, and the same government provided/enforced benefits that normal married couples get.

    There’s no argument FOR governmental recognition of gay “marriage”; but there is a libertarian argument AGAINST governmental recognition and subsidization of actual marriage.

    Subsidizing normal marriage through the tax code is a form of social engineering. And the danger with social engineering is that it almost always leads down a slippery slope. Affording special considerations to married couples was social engineering that everyone could originally agree upon. But that does not eliminate the danger that, by so doing, you create a justification that can then be used for non-traditional “marriages” as well.
    Eliminate the social engineering involved in normal marriage, and you eliminate the justification for government recognition of any “marriage” … including gay “marriage”.
    Do away with the marriage deduction (and any other privileges granted by government to normal marriage) and you do away with the push for gay “marriage”.

    • TribeofLiberty

      Although I do think there may be some merit to the “get the government out of marriage” claim, I do not think it is realistic to actually believe the government will do so, especially once the Left gets ahold of the definition of marriage by making it sexless. I have a hard enough time convincing anybody to believe reforming divorce laws is a good thing. Those on the Left in particular are vehemently opposed to any reform of divorce laws. So I really doubt they’d ever get on board with allowing marriage to go back to the churches.

      And perhaps more importantly: no legislator is actually proposing any policy to get the government out of marriage. What is being proposed is to make marriage sexless, so I’m just trying to address the problem as it actually is. Honest leftists will admit that sexless marriage is the destruction of traditional marriage. Of course, this is not how they market it to voters. Voters actually believe that marriage is simply being expanded to include gay couples. Expanding marriage vs eliminating traditional marriage are two very different things at the policy level. Since traditional marriage is the gold standard for children’s outcomes across all measures, the fact that we are rushing headlong to eliminate it is truly frightening.

      At any rate, I appreciate your perspective, but I do feel it is not realistic. How would such a thing be accomplished? Marriage is part of so many social policies. I’m just trying to understand how it would actually work, and how it would impact children. Thanks for your remarks. ~Jennifer Thieme

  • http://blaze.com/ mathchopper

    I have no problem with homosexuals being “united” if they were born that way. My problem is calling it “marriage”. Can’t we let the Christians win one for a change?

    • $14223524

      I thumbs downed you, you need to read the bible. This lifestyle is perverted. They are affecting others by forcing all to worship it. I also believe the drugs in use, pharmaceutical or not, are the real cause of this perverted lifestyle. Why do psycologists/counsellors give students drugs ? Oh, to alter the way they think, why give them drugs if it “doesn’t” alter the way they think ! So, then, their thinking isn’t straight when told homosexuality is normal !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! “Why not teach the truth” GOD will bless you for teaching the truth !!!

      • http://blaze.com/ mathchopper

        Notice my “^”. The problem with your argument is that in most debates, “truth” is an opinion rather than an absolute.

        • $14223524

          But, truth is an absolute, you can’t make a false statement and it be true. By you saying there is no absolute truth, your statement can’t be absolute truth !!! Your statement can be false then !!! Mr. Mathmatician ! In “reality” there is absolute truth. I’m a sinner, that is an absolute truth. I asked JESUS CHRIST to forgive me of my sin. This is an absolute truth that, He will forgive me, because I do not call Him a liar. He said He is our Savior/Sacrifice/Ransom for our sin and will give us inheritance in heaven by confessing the truth and following Him with all our heart, mind and soul. I still sin/fall, but hate it and get back up and try again. This is a process we go throuh til His very near return. Then we will be transformed in an instant, because there can not be any evil in his Kingdom ! AMEN !

          • http://blaze.com/ mathchopper

            You say your being a sinner is an absolute truth. Okay… by definition of “absolute truth”, as we do in mathematics, prove it. (Books not allowed)

          • $14223524

            Stupid comment. Prove to me what 2+2= without using books. Oh that’s right, I’m just supposed to believe you ! Well, I will believe the christian bible long before I would believe any book of this world. It absolutely makes complete common sense. Something you refuse to accept.

          • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

            First of all, your spelling, punctuation and grammar are nearly as appalling as anything I’ve seen on HuffPo. I have a hard time believing that you’re making an educated decision when I can barely understand what you’ve written.

            Second, even scripture recognizes a difference between the moral law and the ceremonial law. Folks like you love to quote that single verse in Leviticus, but you ignore all the others around it and expect people to take you seriously? The Apostle Paul climbed all over the Galatians for that very same thing – following ceremonial laws that they agreed with, ignoring the parts they disagreed with and damning anyone who didn’t believe the way they did. Christ was the fulfillment of the ceremonial law; it no longer holds sway over us. I don’t recall Christ ever condemning homosexuality, either. He did, however, speak seven woes upon the religious leaders who thought they had it all figured out.

            There is a moral law that is absolute. Murder, theft, lying and other such things are absolutely wrong. Your entire argument about homosexuality is based purely on a religious creed. You have a right to believe as you do, but you do NOT have a right to write that belief into law. The instant you do you run afoul of the First Amendment – that law you so like to hold up when you’re being oppressed. I will be the first to stand up with you when you’re being wronged, and you have been wronged (not the least of which by Obamacare). I will not stand with you when you try to re-write the law to recognize your personal religious beliefs as the only truth in this world.

          • $14223524

            With poor writing as I have, and I have more sense than you, to understand the word of GOD. I may not be perfect as an earlier comment says, but enough heart to admit what is sin. You call GOD a liar if you say homosexuality is not a sin. Romans 1:26-27 – “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

            1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (NIV).

            While the scripture may sound clear, the debate actually surrounds the use of the Greek word that this particular version of the Bible translates as “homosexual offenders.” The term is “arsenokoite.” Some say that it is a reference to male prostitutes rather than to two committed homosexuals. Yet, others argue that Paul, who wrote the passage, would not have repeated “male prostitutes” twice. Even others argue that the two root words in arsenokoite are the same terms used to prohibit any premarital or extramarital sexual relations, so they may not refer to homosexual relations alone.

            However, even if a person believes that homosexuality is a sin based upon this scripture, the next verse does say that homosexuals can inherit the kingdom if they come to the Lord, Jesus Christ.

            1 Corinthians 6:11 – “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” If your right there is no harm done and you go to heaven for eternity, if your wrong, hell is not where I would want to spend eternity because of my pride and lust.

          • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

            Actually, Paul uses two different words – malakoi and arsenokoite. One is believed to mean something more along the lines of describing a man who pimps out young boys. It is your OPINION that my belief that homosexuality is not a sin is equal to calling God a liar. You interpret scripture as you do because someone in England translated it that way from ancient texts of a dead language. There have been several proven errors in the translation – the use of “homosexual offenders” and “effeminate” among them.

            You may think you have more sense than I do; that does not make you right. Your belief also does not give you the right to force said religious belief on the populace by writing it into law. I have no problem with you believing as you do, but you will NOT make it the law of the land. I would fight that just as fiercely as I now fight creeping sharia, because the First Amendment forbids us from writing any law that is rooted solely in religious belief.

            I really don’t want to hear you or anyone else preach to me about pride and lust. I know some gay people who have absolutely no inhibitions, but I also know quite a few gay people who have better morals than you anti-gay Christians claim. I’m not talking about lust, I’m talking about love – you fail to understand because you refuse to question what you’ve been spoon-fed by your church. If you wish to live that way, that’s your issue. You will not make it mine.

          • blinddemocrat

            Well Mel, I never claimed to be perfect, I only claim the truth of GOD’s word. And I agree with every word in the Geneva Bible. In the book of Romans it says, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of GOD”, yes this means “me” also. But I disagree that living by the laws of the bible aren’t supposed to be forced on all people. If there weren’t a bible (GOD’s word) to follow by, there wouldn’t be any laws. God’s word is the foundational laws we live by. Murder, lying, stealing, adultery, etc. you just don’t want to follow “all” of them, because our flesh is weak. God says you must “try” with all your heart mind and soul. I’m far, far from perfect, it will never be achieved here on earth in our flesh. It’s a constant battle everyday and some battles are lost. Boy, believe me, I wish I could please my flesh, but I know what the right thing is to do, so I behave that way (most of the time) and I’m getting better at it as time goes on. And I learn about GOD’s love more and more and how filled with Joy I get when I deny myself of fleshly desires. It’s a short road, maybe today, or in a week etc. But when that day comes, I will be ready for His return or my exit. May GOD give you grace and mercy and may you accept his word. You can be saved but on his terms, not your own. I like his terms, because there is “no evil” where he is. PS. you must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior/Sacrifice/Ransom for your sin and repent. I don’t hate sinners, or I would hate myself, somtimes I do hate myself because I know I just hurt GOD. I am just a messenger, and sometimes the message isn’t what we want to here. My advice to you is – Seek GOD, the reverent fear of GOD is the beginning of wisdom.

          • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

            If it weren’t for the Bible, there wouldn’t be any laws to live by? Then, by all means, explain Sharia.

          • Sara

            Jesus clearly affirmed that marriage is between one man and one woman in a discussion with the Pharisees about divorce (Matt. 19:3-8). According to Jesus, the Genesis account of the creation of man and woman is to be the ongoing model for marriage since it reflects God’s original intent.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            It’s interesting you note that particular part of Matthew.

            Doesn’t Jesus also bar remarriage there, noting to the Pharisees that Moses had only allowed for it because of imperfect circumstances of that time?

            Why is it incumbent upon society to enforce Jesus’ definition of marriage upon everyone (including non-Christians) when it comes to only man and woman being married, but NOT when it comes to Jesus’ words on remarriage?

            If we are enforcing Jesus’ words on marriage against all of civil society, shouldn’t we ban 2nd marriages?

          • Sara

            Sounds good to me. Unfortunately, someone had to stop Henry VIII from killing all his wives.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            Haha… I appreciate the fact that you are applying your faith evenly!

    • Educateyourself

      Christians don’t have the term marriage trademarked. It goes on in many other religions and often between a couple with no religion at all. Marriage has already been redefined, especially when divorce became okay.

  • gatekeeper96740

    Kevin Jennings Safety and school Czar,said “His goal: In no more than
    2 generations,heterosexuality will be as frowned upon by society as homosexuality was 2 generations to achieve the U.N. Goal of near 0 population growth. It is Eugenics plain and simple.Top population for the planet 500 million.

    • 9Spoon9

      Not only do they wish to hate population growth…the NWO is want to reduce the Earth’s population of human inhabitants by as much as 50%. To Everyone – Do some research, Goggle Sir David Attenborough + populaton control for starters.

      • gatekeeper96740

        Sir David says humans are threatening their own existence and that of other species by exhausting the world’s resources. He told the Radio Times: “We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now.”
        His remarks come as latest projections show the world’s population rising to nine billion by 2050
        http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_01_23/Sir-David-Attenborough-recommends-population-control/

    • http://theawakenednation.ning.com/profile/KevinMKeener Snowman8wa

      They are going to keep it up until the heterosexuals say enough…..then like “Cowboys and Indians…….the theme will be Cowboys and gayboys………with the GLBTs loosing the battle and the war…….it will be the ONLY time you see Islam and Infidels on the same team…………..
      Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis

      • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

        I will tell you what I told the other guy: if you think you can take me, come and get me.

  • CALIFORNIAMARTY

    The court in Loving v. Virginia ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    The unanimous court held that:

    “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very
    existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so
    unsupportable a basis as the racial ( or gender?) classifications embodied in these
    statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of
    equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive
    all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The
    Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be
    restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution,
    the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides
    with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

    Marriage strengthens society as a whole and the two individuals involved. Married folks do not spread diseases as much as the singles do. Old folks marry when they cannot procreate. Old men marry youth a quarter or third of their age and multiple times. Should these folks be barred too?

    Two human beings in love that want to share their lives together as a married couple should be allowed to do so. They hurt no one.

    Different strokes for different folks is supported by the Constitution.

    I am not gay and I voted against Obama each time and deplore most all of his actions. Does that make me a Conservative or just someone that can spot a Fabian Socialist when I see one? I abhor his gun stances, Ovomitcare, big government, high taxes and know that socialism is the equal sharing of misery as Churchill once said, but,

    The SCOTUS will, in my opinion overturn anti same sex marriage laws of all states in one or two cases they have chosen.

    • Frank_Alexander

      “They hurt no one.” This is what people say about prostitution, about sleeping around (man or woman), about bi-sexuality, about illegal drug use, or legal drug abuse… And then the taxpayer gets left holding the $ bill! For women and children living in poverty, for psychological/psychiatric care, for unemployment benefits, the detox, the car wrecks, etc… The NO ONE is actually the rest of us who try to do it rightly and end up paying enormous bills for this lack of self restraint. I’m sure you heard about the lesbians who had a child and both of them are not on welfare. The state wants the sperm donor to provide child support… Bottom line: There is no free lunch and not everything can be permitted under the guise of freedom…
      When a Man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything. Chesterton

      • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

        Do you really think that heterosexuals don’t sleep around? I’m a lesbian. My sister is straight as an arrow. I have never had a one-night stand, I’ve never touched narcotics, I’ve never been an alcoholic and I work in public safety. My sister, on the other hand, has lost track of the number of men she’s slept with, has for years experimented with cocaine, and was a raging alcoholic for well over a decade. Sorry to destroy your narrative.

        • Frank_Alexander

          Mel: My comment, if you read it again, deals with the notion that people say that some lifestyles, not just the homosexual lifestyle, don’t hurt anyone… so your response is a non-sequitor.

          • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

            You can’t even spell the phrase correctly, so I doubt you even understand your own argument.

          • Frank_Alexander

            Spell a phase correctly? That’s a new one… Ddi you learn how to spell phrases in 1st grade?

          • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

            I learned how to spell “did”, that’s for sure.

          • Sara

            The use of the conjunction “don’t” is appropriate for the plural “lifestyles”. Ignore the portion between the commas.

    • TribeofLiberty

      Loving v. Virginia argues for my point, because the phrase ” …fundamental to our very existence and survival….” affirms that marriage is procreative, and is therefore a gendered institution. ~Jennifer Thieme

  • jeanne Ballard

    Sodomy is still sodomy and perverted behavior is still WRONG!

    • Educateyourself

      There are heterosexual couples that commit sodomy.

      • Susan

        Taught by Marxist marketing of “Deep Throat” and by A. Kinsey and The Beats. Sodomy in heterosexuals used to be rare—as did out-of-wedlock births and sex.

        Marketing of Evil is very powerful. Through movies they have a extremely powerful tool to normalize anything to young children and adults….whether smoking or wearing jeans—anything. It is the “perceptions” they give–and the school system is created for “mass conformity”.

        They have flip Good and Evil (erased God from schools in 50′s)—as you can see by how Jerry Brown and schools teach little boys to take “Pride” in sodomy–Pride in pederasts as Harvey Milk (with MSM) —just like they teach those pretty little boys in harems in Afghanistan. Pederasty always is part of homosexual cultures because it is “taught” since way before the Samurai and Ancient Greeks.

        • Guest

          Wow. You are delusional.

          • Susan

            Actually, I am extremely well-read. You are ignorant! Google harem/boys/Afghanis sometime—or Germany/boyscouts/homosexuals etc. Homosexuality is not what you have been brainwashed “to believe” by massive marketing such as with the agitprop of “Glee” and “Will and Grace” which is used to “normalize sick, dysfunctional behavior” in children.

            Taking “Pride” in such a vile behavior is sick and forcing little children to “think” sodomizing “others” is “good” is really insane and sick and “flips” ethics on its head—where “Evil is Good” (just like the Bible predicted). The homosexual cultures (like Ancient Greece and Samurai, etc) are very hateful of women, also, who are reduced to 2nd class citizenship. It is really extremely sexist. Women are reduced to “breeders” and children are reduced to being bought and sold and used. Men use other men and boys for their recreation and spend little, if any time with women—like the Spartans and the Knights Templar, etc. Study the topic. It is truly disgusting and ugly.

          • http://twitter.com/msmoommist Ms MoomMist

            You are only 1/2 correct, you forgot about women-women called Lesbians? Sorry it isn’t just men, but women have the same dystunctional behavior, therefore; your “extremely well-read” theory has an 1/2 hole in it.

          • apf2

            Typical illiterate and ignorant liberal response. If someone can’t fully explain every last aspect of a complicated issue in one paragraph or less then you throw all all of their argument. Susan did a very good job of explaining in very few words part of the cultural roots and sickness of faggotry and homosexual pedofilia. But, because she did not delve into the equally sick but different roots of the dyke culture you dismiss her arguments completely. You are willfully ignorant…

          • Susan

            Marxist “radical egalitarianism” dehumanizes man and states men and women are interchangeable. It destroys the concept of mother and father. It makes children into an economic commodity (human trafficking–slaves to be bought and sold)–the most vulnerable who need the model of a man and woman to learn “normal” human interaction between the sexes. Marxism destroys the very ‘nature of woman’ and ‘nature of man’ –strips them of their emotional, psychological elements which are extremely different and complementary. Women ARE NOT the same as men—nor are their sexual desires identical. Women are emotionally and physically tied to the sex act, unlike men. To deny the “meaning” of the “sex act” which all perversion does—dehumanizes the very act and reduces it to a base animal act. Morality (Virtue) is essential in the human race and for civil society and future development of emotionally healthy human beings and for a flourishing economy to exist…..even Nietzsche realized that.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            The irony of your argument is that under the guise of explaining how rigid and dogmatic Marxism is, you prove that you have a vision of the world that is even more rigid – more kneejerk and falsely comprehensive – than Marxism itself.

            I don’t know if you have read a book and decided you know how everything in the world works based on that or if you are so rigid in your own thinking that you can’t imagine the world working in any other way than your narrow worldview allows.

            But lighten up! Only about 10% of your preconceived notions are true, and you come off like a complete quack.

          • Susan

            I quote Natural Law Theory—which is based on the Laws of Physics and outdates Marxism by over a thousand years. Marxism ignores science and biology—wants the family and God obliterated, pretends in “radical equality” which is a provable fraud. Men are intrinsically different from a woman and complementary–that is a biological fact—-and then thousands of years of history prove the best, most free, most humane, and flourishing system of raising children is by their biological parents–people who have a genetic interest in them–so who is the “quack”? Not I —I use Logic and Reason which is based on Natural Laws. You seem to think sodomy is “good” and “natural”. You are so deluded and Satanic. Using the body in such bizarre, ritualistic, unnatural ways is really knee-jerk and a false construct of reality and an ugly, dirty fecal one at that. Evil–since it denies children their biological parents, and is such a disease-causing use of the body— and it is totally nihilistic and sick.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            I “seem to think” that?

            I won’t read too much into that projection. I’m sure you got that out of the natural law article on NewsMax where you got the rest of your thinking…

          • Susan

            Any godless person who *thinks* there is no God’s Design in Nature, can just make up any arbitrary “truth” they want—-like “urges” to poke things into body cavities for self-gratification– is “love”. Such a warped, artificial view and creepy use of the human body — in removing all dignity to such a degree that animals wouldn’t even indulge in the ugly practice, unless trained by some pervert —true—I could really never *guess* what such an intellectually deprived “person” could *think*. It could be any random thing. I took a semester of Natural Law Theory. I love Truth–not some fairy-tale “gender” stuff, which is a mockery of science and defies all Wisdom. Such ugly artificial hatred of half the human race is evil and nihilism.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            Weird. Delusional AND full of more projections!

            Please stop blaming your hallucinations on God. Your ramblings have NOTHING to do with God, and you are making Christians look stupid.

          • Susan

            Natural Law Theory is hardly “Christian”–it originated before “Antigone” (Sophocles). Please use that pea-sized “brain” of yours. True, all Marxists who live in an artificially constructed “utopia” are irrational—as the great Ayn Rand stated. All Marxists/Socialists/Progressives/Leftists who worship Satanic Ethics think “Good is Evil”, “Sodomy is a Right” (from Satan, of course)— but, whatever one “claims”–according to whatever “urge” or “orientation” one learns from their perverted and warped “reality” of the socialist, Marxist or fatherless home—-Whatever!

            That is your point. There is no Good and Evil—beyond instincts and “urges”. The intellect—that which is what separates us from the Beast–is thrown out for “feelings” and “urges” and destruction of culture.

            You are “weird” and can not use “Reason”, for Marxism is always irrational because of their unsubstantiated “assumptions”—they believe that “nothing created everything” and human beings are “means to an end”–simply evil by all Christian Theology. How stupid and illogical is that?

            Anyone who claims two sodomites can actually “marry” is weird and illogical. Trying to warp the “reality” of children by presenting such absurdity in the culture is beyond Evil and warped. Exactly like that warped world of the pretty little Afghani boy—and like all the other sodomite cultures–the Samurai, Knights Templar–Ancient Greek/Roman/Asian cultures—where women were reduced to breeders and chattel and children were commodities for human traffic and to be sexually abused. Men used each other and children for their recreation, like they do today in Afghanistan.

            You seem to want to impose the idea of anal sex onto small children just like in Afghanistan— by this promotion of “homosexual” “Rights”. There is no “Right” to such evil, dysfunctional, unnatural (by Natural Law standards—as well, as Judeo-Christian Ethics) use of the body. it is just Reason and Science that prove this. You can leave God out, although in the USA our Rights are supposed to come from God, according to the Supreme Law of the Land (Constitution).

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            What in the world ado you think you are responding to?

            Where are you getting “my position” from?

            Are you reading something you think I have written?

            You appear to be making up statements, ascribing them to me, and then attacking me for it.

            I am going to assume you are replying to the wrong comment or something.

            Have a great day and better luck with future comments!

  • Jumper82

    No you cannot be conservative and believe in gay relationships, cant understand why they would call it marriage. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman as it was meant to be by God, anything else is immorally and naturally wrong.

    • Educateyourself

      Unless you’re an athiest couple, then god gets left out. But that’s okay, right?

      • Jumper82

        As long as you are male and female, religion can change over time.

      • Jumper82

        I should have elaborated a little more. I believe in God and Jesus as my personal savior. I was raised in the church but didn’t see much use in going after I was in high school. Things happened in my life and I turned to God and really got some good answers and what I would have to call Miracles, that is my belief. So that is what I meant that Religion can change over time. I spent many years away from God before I went back I consider myself one of the lucky ones.

  • Steven

    There is a LIBERTARIAN argument for gay marriage, but not a CONSERVATIVE argument. While libertarians and conservatives agree on many issues, they are not the same. We must acknowledge the difference in order to work together on those issues where we agree.

    • 9thID

      My interaction with self-described Libertarians has led me to believe that most of them have more in common with the Left than with true conservatives. I agree with those who state that Liber-alism and Liber-tarianism are just two sides of the same coin of Libertinism. Liberalism is the path to collectivism, and the flipside of Libertarianism is the path to anarchy.

      Using Reagan’s “3-legged stool” of conservatism as a guideline (Fiscal + Social + National Security), you will find that Libertarians tend to agree more with Liberals on Social and National Security issues. They may say that they don’t necessarily agree for the same reasons, but the end result is the same. In this case, 2 out of 3 is not good. Why Clash has the secular humanist Libertarian Michelle Zook on here is a mystery to me…

    • Frank_Alexander

      I do not know how Ron Paul is a libertarian and against abortion. He is definitely an odd duck, though a nice guy!

      • Sandra Lee Smith

        Being against murder is not incompatible with being a libertarian, and until you grasp that “abortion” IS murder of innocents, without trial, without counsel, you will never understand the difference between right and wrong; and therefore you can never understand the mind and heart of your own Creator!

        • Frank_Alexander

          You are absolutely right and I admired Paul for his firm stance on this. The fact is he was a trained obstetrician may have had something to do with it..

          • Sandra Lee Smith

            Could, if he believes in the Hippocratic oath, although I have questions about that, since he advocates FOR drug legalization, which is nearly as bad as abortions, in terms of human destruction. He’s a hard one to peg.

          • Frank_Alexander

            I like Ron Paul because he was principled. This does not mean I’ve voted for him or agreed with him.

        • Johnnygo7

          Thank you

    • TribeofLiberty

      Steven, what is this libertarian argument? Since sexless marriage diminishes the power of both the natural family and the church, I am surprised that libertarians agree with it, as they are, supposedly, in agreement with real conservatives on the idea of limiting government power. ~Jennifer Thieme

      • Steven

        While I am not a libertarian, YOU just stated the argument. Many libertarians argue that the government shouldn’t recognize marriage in ANY form. Without government involvement, gay marriage is nothing more or less than two members of the same gender living together and claiming the word.

        • Sandra Lee Smith

          What they’re claiming to be “denied” by not being “married” is the legal rights of inheritance and visitation, that legal spouses allegedly enjoy. I’ve seen nowhere that states a person can’t leave his property to whomever he so desires; and “visitation” MIGHT be denied in hospitals’ ICUs where they have a strict “immediate family” only policy, which is a simple enough fix, without changing ALL the structure of society as a whole!

        • TribeofLiberty

          I guess I misunderstood. I thought you said there was a libertarian argument for gay marriage. Getting the government out of marriage is a different argument, a different solution. I addressed getting the government out of marriage elsewhere on this comment thread, in my remarks to “Guest.”

      • Sandra Lee Smith

        I happen to lean libertarian, but conservative; and I DON’T agree with it. IF a person wishes to sin in private, so be it, that’s his choice and right; and between him and his Creator. When he brings that into the public arena, and demands I accept his sin as “normal behavior”, then he’s infringing on MY rights, and has NO right to do so. My rights are Creator-given, as are his; I choose to abide by the laws my Creator set in place, also my right and choice, and thereby don’t infringe on the rights of any others in doing so. When a person starts “tinkering” with those laws by demanding rights NOT granted and set forth by our Creator, he’s again infringing on my rights, as well as those of others. An individual’s rights STOP at that point at which they begin to infringe on the rights of one or more others! It’s that simple!

        • Johnnygo7

          You are so right. Thanks again

        • Educateyourself

          People sin publicly every day. What rights of yours are they infringing upon? America is a country based on religious freedom, not everyone believes in your God. It is against Jewish faith to eat pork, but they do not try to remove it from restaurants, or make it illegal all together.

          • Sandra Lee Smith

            Pork in the markets or restaurants doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights. Jews and Muslims are free to make other choices. When you change the whole structure of laws and language, to satisfy a sin, however that does infringe on my rights to my beliefs. When someone tells me I can’t believe a sin is a sin, that infringes on my rights, when someone tells me I can’t call a sin a sin, that infringes on my rights. Is it making sense to you now?

          • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

            Trust me, there are plenty of us who would fight for the death for your right to believe what you believe. I am one of them. What you are suggesting is writing your religious belief into law, and that is not acceptable.

          • Sandra Lee Smith

            I’m not talking about writing anything INTO law; they’re already IN the laws supposed to be being enforced in this nation.

          • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

            Nobody is telling you that you can’t believe what you believe or express it – at least not legally. If it gets to the point that the left really does begin to assault your First Amendment rights, I will be right there with you to fight them. Nothing gives any of us the right to not be offended.

          • Sandra Lee Smith

            The laws are infringing already, Mel. Look at Obamacare. Look at what’s happening to our military; those are simply the beginning. The laws that prevent many from displaying symbols of their beliefs, even American flags in some places, are already happening across the nation. I took an oath to the Constitution, so help me God, more than 40 years ago, and I stand on that oath today. That is true; nothing gives any of us a “right” to not ever be offended by things. Yet some in this nation DO believe they have that right now.

          • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

            Do you think I and other gay conservatives don’t notice what’s happening? We’re fighting for your rights, too, you simply choose not to see it.

            I don’t agree with women in combat roles, but there is NOTHING in the Constitution that bars homosexuals from serving their country. If that is what you’re talking about when you mention the military, then I have nothing more to say to you.

          • Sandra Lee Smith

            There’s nothing in the Constitution, but there was plenty in the UCMJ, about the sexual behaviors of ALL members! And IF homosexuals truly simply wanted to serve the nation, DADT was their ticket to do so; but that wasn’t sufficient; now they and you are muzzling chaplains who are the FIRST line of psychological defense for all front line troops, so that they can’t preach their faiths, or counsel victims of PTSD or sexual assaults effectively and before my blood pressure goes through the roof on that I’ll stop there!

        • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

          Waitaminit, you’re allowed to display your religious belief and speak your mind and show love to your partner because you’re seen as normal, but the instant I’m seen holding hands with my girlfriend in public I shouldn’t have the right to the same thing you do? What kind of twisted logic is that? You sound like a liberal – the only difference is that liberals are trying to tell us that we shouldn’t be allowed to believe in certain morals. You’re doing the same thing, just on the opposite end of the spectrum.

          • Sandra Lee Smith

            I don’t hold hands with a girlfriend in public or otherwise, but I wasn’t discussing interdigitation in any case. I was discussing law that exist, and have existed for millenia, and are part of the code of law in this nation; as well as the Creator-given rights we have. My right to express my religious belief which is a Creator- given right is infringed upon, by certain demands by a small group of the population that doesn’t believe I have the right to call certain behaviors a sin, or to reject those behaviors as aberrant, and unwholesome, even on a biological basis. If you are a member of that group, then I suggest you seriously rethink your position because your Creator will not hold that guiltless either.

          • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

            You have a right to your opinion, but that is all it is to me: your opinion. I’m completely at peace with God. I couldn’t find peace until I was honest with who I was and stopped trying to force myself to be something I wasn’t.

          • Sandra Lee Smith

            Mel, I believe you’ve found a sort of “peace” outside God, in that you no longer have a conflict But it’s not peace with God. I’ve done that too, and it’s NOT the same as when you do have peace WITH God. I don’t know how to explain the difference to you; I know that when there’s emotional conflict within you’ll do anything to find a modicum of peace from that, and even going outside His will to do so is not uncommon. I was in that place for about 20 years, because it was the only way I could cope with all that was churning around in me. The peace I have now is so different it’s like night and day…. All I do know is that you can’t have that when you’re outside God’s will and law, for whatever reason. And I know that His law is clear.

          • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

            Your definition of peace and mine are obviously different. Anyone who knows me would tell you that I’m a much better person now than I was ten years ago. You think you know what I dealt with; you do not. My relationship with God is between myself and Him, and you don’t get to judge it.

          • Sandra Lee Smith

            Peace has ONE definition; it’s not subjective; all words have meanings in order to make communication possible; and if one tries to change that meaning, communication does not happen, which is in fact a huge part of the reason communication is not happening in Congress! Be that as it may; no, I don’t know what you’ve gone through, neither do you have any better knowledge of what I’ve gone through; but I do know what GOD has said on the subject, and I have a fairly good understanding of how the human mind works, as well as a sister who used to be my baby brother. And i know she’s done exactly what you seem to be doing! I was trying to offer you some sound advice, nothing more. But since you prefer to continue in your sin and call it “peace” with God, so be it; I shake your dust off, and will move on. God help you, IF you’ll let him.

    • TribeofLiberty

      I just thought of this. Another reason libertarians should be against sexless marriage is that they are against equality of outcome. Sexless marriage advocates have convinced people that it wasn’t fair that lesbians and gays could not be brides and grooms. So the social policy they advocate makes it so that NO man or woman can be a bride or a groom, not even heteros.

      This is equality of outcome, and libertarians should not support it.

      • Steven

        Where do you get the idea libertarians are against equal outcome? the oppose FORCE, but if equal outcome happens without force, they couldn’t care less. I also dispute the premise that same sex unions are equal outcome.

        Is there an actual libertarian out there that will take over this discussion, or at least confirm or deny what I have been saying about libertarians?

  • tncdel

    A homosexual man has THE EXACT SAME RIGHT, no more, no less, as does a heterosexual man under the Constitution to marry a woman. However, the fact that he does not wish to avail himself of that right, though surely that is his prerogative, does not create another right for him; namely: to change the heterosexual definition of marriage.

  • darkcyder

    Emphasis here should be put on the BEHOLDING part. Our constitution establishes taht our rights are God-given, not man-given. However, a right like gay marriage is ONLY man-given, and therefore makes all other rights that come with that man-given. In this way, the gay couple, and any others who unite under the new codification of law set forth for them, are subjects of the government who gives them the right to unite. That’s a scary step, and one we should not take. I’m glad (not glaad) that this has been brought up as a subject of discussion. It is not an angle that I had considered, and very important to the discussion.

  • Frank_Alexander

    A Social Conservative cannot buy this argument. It’s a SIN, for Pete’s sake.. A Fiscal Conservative cannot either. It puts capitalism in the awkward position of positing that there is no objective right or wrong. If this is the case, the law has no purpose, contracts have no meaning, agreements are useless. We then get anarchy. Everyone/anyone believing that he/she owns his/her own truth and to hell with objective truth. This would make the Wild West look tame with the destructive technology available today. The best examples of this are Lady Gaga (who is bi), Kim Kardashian, etc…. There is nothing there , just the self… It is most destructive.

    • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

      Frank, if you’re basing everything you “know” about gay people on those loony tunes, you’re every bit as ignorant as the gay liberals say you are. I can’t stand gay liberals. I particularly despise it when a so-called conservative proves them right. Just because YOU say it’s sin doesn’t mean you’re allowed to make it the law of the land.

      • Frank_Alexander

        Mel: Insulting people as looney tunes is not becoming of you. I specifically separated reasons to disapprove of homosexual marriage for social AND fiscal conservative reasons. I made my case for both.

        By the way, there is not a single NON-RELIGIOUS philosophy that can make the case for why killing or raping or stealing is wrong. The philosophy of reason (Ayn Rand and others) cannot get past the idea that everyone has a different notion of what is reasonable and not. It all came to us from the 10 Commandments and this is what the laws in the western world was based on. You cannot change this, no matter how hard you want it to fit your particular circumstance and justify your lifestyle. Don’t ask others to buy it.

        • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

          I hate to break this to you, but Lady Gaga and her ilk are all loony as the day is long. You cannot base me or my beliefs on her or anyone else.

          There are plenty of non-religious philosophical beliefs that can make the case quite beautifully. BTW, many of our founding fathers were deists. Washington was a devout Christian, but others were not. They believed in religious principle – but not respect in the law for a singular religious rule.

          • Frank_Alexander

            Just 1 non-religious philosophical belief that makes the case, please!

          • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

            You already brought it up: objectivism. I think it makes the case beautifully.

  • rightandright

    Let’s face it,you gayrod freaks need psychiatric help or else take the pipe bastards. We all know this whole idea that you people are born this way is pure nonsense,alot of bullshit. Why don’t you all leave this country or even better,this earth. I will fight to the death to eliminate this demented scourge on America and keep you from infecting the innocent children that have survived the other of your so-called choices—MURDER byABORTION! Screw this diversity bullshit! Get on you knees and repent while you can.

    • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

      Son, you can try all you like to eliminate me. Since I am a lesbian who firmly believes in my Second Amendment rights, you’ll have a hell of a time coming after me. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that we’re all liberal panzies. Think again, you disgraceful fraction of a man.

      Mr. Giles, if this is the type that you surround yourself with, I hope you’re proud of yourself.

  • CaptTurbo

    I would say no because homosexual behavior is offensive to God.

    • Educateyourself

      Not everyone believes in the same God, or a God. This is America, we are allowed our religious freedoms. But that does not mean those freedoms should restrict rights of citizens.

    • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

      I guess that means your belief is the only right one in the world and our law should be scrapped and re-written as a Christian manifesto.

    • TribeofLiberty

      The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is based on homosexual behavior, rather on the ramifications to children, families, and society of making marriage a sexless institution.

      • CaptTurbo

        OK, so, no, because homosexual behavior if offensive to God and harmful to children.

      • CaptTurbo

        I’m guessing that God understands all the ramifications of sodomy.

        • TribeofLiberty

          Lesbians don’t commit sodomy. My point is that gay sexual behavior is not related to the policy question at hand. In fact, people on the fence would understand the conservative position much better if our side quit talking about gay sexual behavior.

          The question is this: should marriage become sexless as a policy? We can answer the question without discussing gay sexual behavior, and this will help people not only understand function of traditional marriage to society, it may bolster those want to support traditional marriage but who also have gay friends or family whom they refuse to disparage..

  • Jim

    I’m sorry, I thought that Conservatives were proponents of limited government. The danger of “it’s wrong, there ought to be a law!” thinking was well understood by The Founders. The implications of this thinking should be self-evident as rights that we hold dear, such as 2A, are threatened by this same mentality.

  • Gizmo

    Thank you for laying this out. I have presented bits & pieces of this to my 19 yr old son & friends (public school indoctrination – feelgoodism & situational ethics) but now from another mouth, a complete argument. And you didn’t “quote Bible” which son says I “hide behind” (of course, as a Christian, I DO!!!).

    One other MAJOR argument to make is that this is a VERY SMALL portion of any population within the USA. Even going back to Kinsey’s ridiculous study that’s always quoted, there’s only 10% of the populace that are homosexuals. The only reason why they are even given the time of day is that they can be another “group of victims” that can be exploited by the media, the dems & progressives.

    • Educateyourself

      10% of the population is still a part of the population. These peoples lives mean something. Think about it.

      • Gizmo

        Oh, I don’t disagree! But, since this is a Republic, rights are spelled out for ALL not for a miniscule “special group” or, actually, even for a “majority” if we were technically following the Constitution. Any & all people have the same rights & FREEDOMS as laid out in the Bill of Rights & spelled out concisely in the Preamble. Read it. ALL men (that’s people…) We are NOT nor ever have been a country of “special interests” & “special groups” we are a melting pot & a soup, blinded to color, race, religion, etc. where one & all are supposed to adhere to Lex Rex and the freedoms of all of us. Before the Constitution & before the Law there are supposed to be no difference, yet for many reasons, most political & most unscrupulous, small groups have been allowed to force their desires upon ALL of us – We are not “colorblind” as the King’s (MLK & family & others) wanted, we are not a “melting pot” we were supposed to be after the “Great Wars”, we are not the “Land of the Free” as is laid out in SO many ways throughout the 19th Century. We have allowed ourselves to become the “Land of Special Interests” & “Special Victims”.
        By the way, just for giggles & laughs, I could easily be one of those “victim groups”, too, as my familial background includes NA Indian, Irish, Catholic…

      • Gizmo

        I responded. Educate yourself about what Freedom & Law mean!

  • DeborahCats

    It’s none of our business what consenting adults do in their private lives. It is a civil issue that they have partner rights of insurance, ability to visit each other in ICUnits, et al. Civil unions of two consenting adults must be allowed. Note: TWO (now more); CONSENTING ADULTS (not little girls forced to marry).
    I am right of Atilla the hun fiscally. I am deeply committed to my faith tradition. I hold liberty as a precious value. I have less than zero interest in people’s sexual preference and find it disgusting that so many adults of all persuasions — quite frankly, heterosexuals do more damage to my grandchildren — feel it necessary to parade their promiscuity before us in movies, ads — basically all media.

    However, this is a civil liberty issue, and what individuals prefer for moral or religious reasons is beside the point in the civil society in this area. Who cares whether you think it is right or wrong? We need to live our lives in a moral way and associate with those we think are moral. Let the rest alone.

  • DeborahCats

    PS I meant TWO ( NOT more) — sorry for the typo.

    • Frank_Alexander

      You can edit your own post!

  • Dave Gunn

    Jennifer Thieme is right. A conservative is one who seeks to consere, or preserve, that which is right and wholesome about his nation and culture. Homosexuality and lesbianism are a perverion, one for which God has expressed extreme abhorrance and has destroyed nations in times past.
    One test of whether or not a practice is good and wholesome is to ask this question: What would happen to America if all our people were homosexuals or lesbians? The obvious answer is: The nation would soon cease to exist as homosexuals and lesbians cannot reproduce. Only heterosexual marriage produces offspirng for future generations.
    No conservative would want to sanction a practice which, if engaged in universally, would cause the death of our nation. And for those who would say that they are fiscal conservatives but not conservative in social issues, it is obvious that their worldview is skewed. Their fiscal conservatism does not inform their moral principles. They are inconsistent, contradictory, and disjointed within their own minds.

    • Educateyourself

      What would happen if everyone was Heterosexual? Oh right, overpopulation and starving children.

      • Frank_Alexander

        What?

    • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

      Really? Then how do you explain the fact that I, as a lesbian, acknowledge the fact that homosexuality is not the norm and shouldn’t be? How do you explain the fact that I think homosexuality shouldn’t be taught in schools and abortion on demand should end? Do you really believe that all gay people are that stupid? Of course you do. You don’t care what the truth is, you’re ignorant of reality because you prefer your little world where everyone fits into their little marked box and you know who they all are. You’re an idiot.

  • turfbarn80

    This is brilliant. Add to it that gay marriage is just the tip of the iceberg. Organized polyamorists are waiting for gay marriage to become law so they can also push for the legalization of every kind of “marriage” imaginable: bigamy, polygamy, group, child, and incestuous. Would we really have a civilization then, or just a self indulgent free for all?

    • Educateyourself

      I don’t know any LGBT group that supports child marriage or incestuous marriage.

      • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

        I sure as hell don’t support child marriage, incest or bestiality. I don’t count a soul among my friends who do, either.

      • Frank_Alexander

        By definition a bi-sexual individual can love 2 people. It follows logically that that person will want the invented right to marry both and perhaps several more of the people s/he loves. How wonderful!

      • turfbarn80

        Then look up “polyamorist” on the internet.

  • http://www.monster-island.net/ kushibo

    Gay marriage does not weaken marriage; it strengthens it. Irrespective of same-sex marriage, there is a phenomenon where fewer and fewer people are choosing to marry. Same-sex marriage creates a situation where “getting married” is strengthened because it becomes more normative: That is, getting married becomes a goal for a wider number of people, which means even heterosexuals return to the idea of getting married as the right thing to do.

    • TribeofLiberty

      Sexless marriage weakens the family structure, because it removes the recognition of natural bonds of children with their own natural parents. That’s what must happen when we mandate, as a social policy, that moms and dads don’t exist. Also, what is marriage itself without sex? When I see a photo of two women in white wedding gowns, holding hand in a wedding ceremony, I wonder to myself: “Do they realize that they are not brides? Do they realize what their own marriage license says?” The left is fighting hard for marriage, and yet the very words that make marriage what it is are stripped out, and it doesn’t just apply to gays, it applies to all couples. No woman in ssm states is a bride, according to the policies, and no man is a groom. That’s the policy you are fighting for. It’s actually quite unjust.

      • ken

        “Sexless marriage weakens the family structure, because it removes the
        recognition of natural bonds of children with their own natural parents.” And how does it do that? If Bob and Ted who have been living together for years were to suddenly be allowed to have a marriage license how does that effect the bond between Tom and Carol and their children?

  • Sandra Lee Smith

    First of all, marriage, per se, is a religious institution, going as far back as humans have realized there was a higher Power than themselves; but as we know it today, ordained by the Creator of all things, an institution which civil governments have adopted and supported in the realization, generally, that the nuclear family is the basic building block of human society, and a necessity to a stable and healthy society. But since our Creator ordained it as between a man and a woman, that pretty much eliminates homosexual coupling as a valid “marriage”.

    Second, EVERY single society that has embraced homosexual behavior has collapsed from within due to the amorality that accompanies it, within a generation or 2 at most from doing so! And that’s what our “leadership” is setting us up for on every front!
    John Adams said only a moral and Godly society could be governed by our Constitution; and that’s certainly proving to be prophetically true.

    • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

      Sandra, I don’t think you know history very well. Just because a society has embraced homosexuality does not mean that was the society’s downfall; Rome embraced homosexuality for eons, but the downfall of Rome was actually political in nature – particularly the populace demanding free handouts from the government. Rome had embraced Christianity before it fell apart.

      Greece is still with us, and homosexuality was for a long time actually encouraged among the Greek soldiers. What has brought that society to its knees? The same thing that did Rome in – politics and finances, the people demanding that the government care for them.

      • Sandra Lee Smith

        Those are symptoms of the same amorality that embraces the sexual perversions, including homosexuality. The Greek empire fell because of it, and so did the Roman empire… Rome is still here today too. but neither is the empire it was. I understand history, and I understand human nature. And I understand that “Christianity” has been largely destroyed as a force against this evil that’s so rampant in our society today, as well. If you”re trying to justify accepting a sin as not a sin, it’s not going to work; it’s a perversion of the act of procreation that was forbidden by our Creator with good cause.

        • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

          Really? Then why won’t you acknowledge the Romans’ turn to Christianity as the empire fell apart? The Greek empire as it was once known was swallowed by the Romans, and the Greek nation still exists – the Roman one does not (sorry, Italy doesn’t count…those people are weak). You claim that all of their political problems stemmed from homosexuality, but you can’t say HOW. How does an entire population getting accustomed to government handouts and bankrupting the empire stem from homosexuality? Evel Knievel couldn’t make that leap. We see that very issue in front of us today: an entire generation raised to believe that the entire world owes them something, so they’ll petition the government to force the rest of us who work hard to give more until we become a society of freeloaders. That has nothing to do with gay people. It has everything to do with lazy, arrogant thieves finding new and more inventive ways to take was was never theirs in the first place.

          Christianity is being attacked out of convenience. It disgusts me, but at the same time I’ve seen an awful lot of arrogance coming from so-called Christians. I am a believer (whether you accept it or not, I am) and I am appalled at the things I hear other Christians saying and see them doing. Why is homosexuality the ultimate sin? Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but he certainly had some strong words for the religious types who thought they had it all figured out and were so ready to pass judgment on anyone not like them.

          • Sandra Lee Smith

            The Roman church was corrupted before the fall of the empire also, and I said it’s the amorality that accompanies such behaviors that enables all the rest to happen. Exactly as we are seeing here! The amorality creeps in with homosexuality and spreads to every other area! Amorality can only creep in when our Creator’s laws are rejected! They were in Rome and they have been here also. It’s that simple. Jesus didn’t mention it per se; but He did say He didn’t come to do away with the law, of which that is a part, so covered. I’m not “passing judgment” on them; I’d like to see them acknowledge their disorder and get right with their Creator too. I saw this coming back in the late ’60s when the DSM IV was being compiled and prepared for publication, but would any listen? NO! It’s not the “ultimate” sin; that’s the rejection of He Who sent us Jesus as our Salvation; but homosexuality blocks an individual from both Father and Son.

          • Ann Onnimus

            Okay, if you really believe that Jesus didn’t do away with the Law… are you ritually circumcising your sons on the 8th day after birth (not before nor after)? Are you avoiding non-Kosher foods like rabbit, shrimp or crab, as well as ALL pork products? Are you (GASP!) wearing clothes made of different materials or a blend of fibers? Celebrating Passover? Do you stone kids to death when they are disrespectful?

            I guess this means that you support the idea of forcing a raped woman to marry her rapist, as well as being in support of slavery. How about allowing our soldiers overseas to take away a bride from one of those countries against her will and marry her? That’s allowed in the OT.

            Because bringing up OT law as the defense for this does not give you the right to pick and choose.

          • Sandra Lee Smith

            It’s not just OT law; it’s BIBLICAL, which means the whole of the Bible, not a piece.

  • Bobseeks

    Our nation is holding evil against its breast just a Cleopatra was said to have held a poisonous snake against her’s. In her case she died when the snake bit her; in our nation’s case, America will die as the poison of perversion makes it way through her body.

    • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

      I beg to differ. A shift away from morality is killing our society, but it’s hardly based on homosexuality. It’s based more in theft, murder of the unborn and corruption as a convenience (swindling). If you really think that gay people are what’s wrong with this country then YOU are part of the problem.

  • foxxybey

    There is no such thing as a homosexual marriage, it is against nature itself and is one of the things God says He will judge a nation for, along with distruction of marriage and the breaking up of the family and that is what is being forced down our beliefs. God says He will also destroy a nation for the killing of babies and we have killed millions and without guns. So America prepare for judgement that you bring on yourself with rejection of God and taking evil to be good in your hearts.

  • Jim

    Here’s an idea-let’s ensure that “conservatives” pass as many personal preference/belief federal laws as possible. Liberals will do the same. Before long, The Constitution will be meaningless.

    Oops, too late.

    Do any real Conservatives post here? Why did the founders, some of whom created sodomy laws in their own states, forget to include these type of federal restrictions in the Constitution?

    • Frank_Alexander

      It’s called federalism. The powers not granted the Federal Government are reserved to the states.Do-gooders corrupted the whole balance!

      • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

        I think the “do-gooders” include you, Frank.

        • Frank_Alexander

          A constructionist reading of the Constitution which you apparently endorse from your other postings on this page does not endorse creating rights out of whole cloth,,, A right to homosexual marriage just like abortion is such a creation!

          Do you know that there are supposed learned people who endorse sex with children and killing children before they are cognitive: Peter Singer of Princeton!!! Look it up. The American Psychological Association endorsed sex with children IF both enjoyed it. They had to eat their words really quickly about 5 years ago.

          Is either forbidden in the Constitution? NO.

          Will you make the argument in 10 years that I am imposing my religious beliefs on you?

          • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

            Nowhere in the comments here have I advocated gay marriage. I don’t think the definition should be changed. I have ALSO very vehemently opposed abortion and still do, so please, don’t go there.

            There is a huge difference between forbidding the harm of children and forbidding the actions of two consenting adults. I will say again: just because you believe it is right doesn’t mean you have the right to make it the law. I say the same damn thing to gay leftists.

          • Frank_Alexander

            “The difference is huge today.” The slippery slope will make that difference a joke in one decade…

          • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

            Don’t put words in my mouth, Frank. I made a simple statement: THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE. Not just today, not yesterday, but there is ALWAYS a huge difference. Tell me, if homosexuality will always devolve into pedophilia, then why is it the overwhelming majority of child molesters are heterosexual in orientation? In 2011 in Arizona and Texas, 19 out of every 20 child molesters were heterosexuals, including the now-infamous Chandler Rapist (who was also an illegal immigrant, BTW).

            If homosexuality is such a slippery slope, that statistic out of my two home states would be a lie, don’t you think? Unfortunately, it is fact. Heterosexuals commit the very same vile acts you so despise in gay people, yet somehow homosexuality is the ultimate sin to you.

  • Johnnygo7

    Yes, Sodomy is still Sodomy. Thank you Jeanne.

  • Rich

    I believe marrage to be a covenment between a man and a woman,the two to become one flesh with the God given mandate to be fruitful and multiply.This covenment has the ability to continue through the eternities, as the man and woman in that covenment become prefected.This leaves no room for so called same sex marrage and any such union should not go by the name of marrage.I though am a realiest and in this inperfect world provision should be made for those with same gender attraction and am in favor of civil unions for these people. Such a cival union would convey all the rights and privelges inherent in a traditional God defined marrage as defined in this world,but as stated before,as it can not endure through the eternities it can not be called marrage. We as a society should not pander to a small militant segment of the gay community that wishes to cram this concept down our throats. I feel that most people with same gender attraction want to peacefully live their lives,contribute to society and not have their sexual attraction to be the single defining attribute of their lives,as they have careers are members of their families of orgin where they are sons or daughters brothers or sisters uncles or aunts and any other such attribute that tends to define all of us whether straight or gay.

    • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

      Okay…so what do you have to say to heterosexual couples who can’t procreate or even choose not to? Since you base your belief completely on God’s command to be fruitful and multiply, shouldn’t those couples be told they can’t marry?

  • Jerri Cook

    Not only is there an argument for homosexual marriage, this issue is
    likely to decide what your doctor can and can’t treat you for. That’s
    what’s at issue in a case pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of
    Appeals–the most liberal court in the land. Can the Government tell a
    psychiatrist what is and isn’t a mental illness? The answer could shake
    our healthcare system to the core and render our Constitution
    meaningless…all while we’re busy debating what God wants. Read the rest here>>>>http://www.country-friedjurist.com/2013/02/a-conservative-argument-in-favor-of-gay.html

    • TribeofLiberty

      Hi Jerry, thanks for your comment and post. You have an interesting perspective, to be sure. One I had never thought of.

      I am interested in your perspective into my argument, which you say is flat out wrong. I am not clear that you understood it, which may be because I didn’t communicate it clearly enough. I must be honest in that I do not agree that your argument FOR gay marriage (which is, remember, an argument for sexless marriage as a policy) is a conservative argument. It is an argument, yes. But ultimately I believe that it is not a conservative argument.

      My argument is this: marriage does not exist without sex. Marriage is the basis for family. The family is an institution which serves to limit the government. Destroying marriage destroys the family which allows the government to expand to fill in the vacuum created by the legitimate needs that were previously met by the family. Therefore sexless marriage, however it comes into being as a policy, can never be a conservative position.

      Thanks for your thoughts. ~Jennifer Thieme

  • 9Spoon9

    Let those that proclaim to be Conservative cast unto the wolves, gators or sharks. Maybe a very small number that are totally agnostic or certified as atheists may support such behavior in some manner. If the World of GOD & Nature had figured such perversions as acceptable then the point would be moot. You don’t expand the heard by having cows alone while all the bulls are kept unto themselves. Ovum + Sperm = New Life (unless an unborn fetus is spontaneously aborted, ripped apart or has it’s brain sucked out of their skulls. Damn…that’s acceptable & encouraged too in America today. What could I be thinking? That’s not PC in today’s don’t hurt anyone’s feelings of our spineless, excuse-making society. 4 Shame…NOT!

    What I know…two males or two females conducting themselves in such manners (a false, uncivil union) should be shunned, avoided and probably exiled like Lepers were in years removed. Let them be turned to ash or salt!

    • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

      Why do all of you hard-right extremists always equate gay people with abortion rights? People like you are the very reason I have such a hard time convincing other gay people that conservative values are worth something.

      • 9Spoon9

        I take offense to you insinuation that Bible believing, Constitutional Law supporting people of higher, if not uncompromising morals are to blame. Check the mirror. Who forced you to take up such an odd way of life? You and all the other minority groups kick, whine and scream as a small child would during a temper tantrum. What has it lead to, special consideration for yet another minority with muzzling efforts to restrict my First Amendment right. You have the same rights and Liberties assured to you under the U.S. Constitution and the 26 Amendments. Yet you believe your perversion should entitle you to be cocooned and harbored by the Federal Govt. Preposterous ideations!

        I didn’t say GLT minority ‘community’ had anything to do with abortion. Your entry indicates however that you must support the ending of a human life on a whim. It’s not Holy, completely unnatural and supports the “hard-left wing extremists’” cries of saving Mother Earth.

        For a species of any kind to continue on, there must be compensatory if not slightly higher birth rates to offset mortality rates. The world-wide population of Judeo-Christian ‘caucasians’ is on a slippery downturn. I mention this only because of the malicious and evil directives that the growing Muslim population’s ability to satisfy their seemingly Prime Directive…Convert other or Kill the disbelieving infidels. Other subsects of the human gene pool are also reflecting little if any growth with many in a also reflecting reductions. The followers of the Koran, through their patience and very large families will allow them to do as they wish within the next 20-30 years even without the protections force upon others through political correctness! Food for thought.

        Maybe that isn’t at the forefront of your or others’ minds, but after their blood letting on America soil along with our loses in Beriut where a US Military barracks was basically demolished by a suicidal driver with a truck bomb carrying out a ‘jihad’ and other incidents doesn’t bode well with this died-in-the-wool Patriot/USAF Retiree! Since you’ll probaly never sire an offspring through traditional manners and customs without blatantly lying to yourself and others about who/what you are and the lifestyle you prefer…it may be extremely difficult to grasp the concept, the basic protective attitude as a father, grandfather and great-grandfather that is ingrained within me.

        Read Sir David Attenborough’s piece on the NWO order agenda to reduce the Earth’s human. Where should they start? Some other observant & learned scholars anticipate their population decrease end goals could be as high as 50% of the World’s populace. Now that’s a warming thought…is it not?

        “…Go ahead and cheat your neighbor; go ahead and cheat your friends…it WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN THE END!”

        • http://www.monster-island.net/ kushibo

          ” You have the same rights and Liberties assured to you under the U.S. Constitution and the 26 Amendments. Yet you believe your perversion should entitle you to be cocooned and harbored by the Federal Govt. Preposterous ideations!”

          Well, no, if they do not have the right to marry, then they do not have the same rights and liberties. They’re not trying to get special treatment by getting same-sex marriage, they are trying to get the same treatment.

          And Caucasians are not a species. It is a subgroup Within a species. And like other groups, take a look at the Koreans and the Chinese and the Taiwanese, they are giving birth less and there will be a population downturn. That’s a function of what happens when a society goes from being poor to being well-off. This is why our population as a whole on this earth is probably going to peak around 9 billion and then contract to a much more manageable stable rate, but probably around six or 7 billion again.

          And I think you need to stop being spoonfed all this anti-Muslim stuff. You are confusing Islamists with the vast majority of Muslims were not like that. I’ve lived around literally hundreds of Muslims and none of them have tried to kill me for being an infidel. That is just something that they do not do, and in fact most Muslim violence is perpetrated against orher Muslims. Muslims themselves loathe the Islamists.

        • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

          No, I do NOT and have NEVER supported abortion on demand, and if you would read anything else that I’d posted you would know that, you weak-minded buffoon. Here’s another shocker for you: I’m against redefining marriage, hate crimes legislation and anti-discrimination laws that require religious people who own businesses to serve everyone.

          You do not know the first thing about what I believe, and I say again, YOU ARE THE REASON I FIND IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO CONVINCE OTHER GAY PEOPLE THAT CONSERVATIVE VALUES MEAN SOMETHING. Get an education, you nitwit.

  • Susan

    No—because it defies the Laws of Nature and nature’s God and denies the Natural Rights of babies to have biological parents. It is making slaves of babies—to be bought from a “breeder” like in the show “The New Normal”. That “worldview” is unnatural and creates an “artificial world” for little children and warps their “thinking” of human nature—just like the little boys’ minds in the harems of Afghanistan. Their worldview is extremely warped—and they can’t wait to become men and have their harem of pretty boys. It is evil. Sodomy is a Vice. You can never promote such an evil idea to children as “Natural”. It destroys Logic and Reason and Natural Laws—-the very foundation of the American Constitution.

    • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

      I don’t think homosexuality should be promoted to children at all, but I could not disagree more that homosexuality is evil. There is a massive difference between the harems of young boys in Afghanistan and grown consenting adults having a mutual relationship.

      • Susan

        Sodomy is an abomination–not only from a “religious” stand point, but by the Natural Law standpoint, since the act is a vile, misuse of body parts which cause disease and destroy the body. It is nihilism–and destroys the very “flourishing” idea in Nature Law. It is a supremely, evil act and “teaches” children a vile misuse of the body (DESTROYS LOGIC AND REASON in young children and creates an artificial dysfunctional “Reality”) and glorifies demeaning, dehumanizing acts. It is also extremely sexist and immature behavior which excludes half of the human race. Marriage is the only institution which unites the sexes which are NOT interchangeable like Marxists claim. There is scientific proof that the “nature” of man and women is quite different and NOT socially constructed–except, yes, their natures (worldview) can be extremely perverted, like sodomy of boys does.

        All homosexual societies since before the Ancient Greeks have used little boys, including the Samurai, and many ME countries today. It is not only a learned behavior–as all behaviors are–it is an unnatural “urge” as all “urges” are which defy logic and destroy life. Urges oriented towards the rape of babies is just as disordered and just as “learned” as any “urge” by their environmental experience. This “urge” is learned by emotional abuse in young childhood where children are denied love by one of their biological parents (Moberly) or where they are sexually abused, and so, like all behaviors and “associations” and “orientations it is “learned” and habituated—and to corrupt the innocence of children is always intrinsically evil.

        • http://gayconservative.org/ Mel Maguire

          And once again, a hardline religious whackjob completely misses my point.

          • Susan

            Name-calling is so rude and puerile…..I did not “miss” your “point” and I am hardly “religious”. I actually was agreeing with most of what you wrote—just illustrating where YOU are wrong to “assume” sodomizing ‘other people just because they are adults” and “it’s mutual” makes it “Good” or “OK”, when it causes disease and is dehumanizing and nihilistic, at best. Why not sodomize an animal. Evil acts, like the vile one of sodomy, is always evil and immature and dysfunctional and sexist. My point that YOU intentionally MISSED—is that history shows that “relationships” of sodomy are always based on little boys and grooming and seducing and “conditioning”. You’ve never read NAMBLA material, either–or the Pink Swastika.

          • Ann Onnimus

            … you ARE aware, aren’t you, that straight couples also engage in sodomy sometimes?

            So what do you say about lesbians? I’m curious.

          • Susan

            Sodomy was popularized by deviants like Kinsey who supported pedophiles and MSM who produced porn like “Deep Throat” to normalize unnatural “sex”. Sodomy was always practiced by Satanic occultists and pagans and forced in Pop Culture to “normalize” deviancy “for the children”. Lesbians—sticking objects into body cavities and calling it “Love”, is especially sick and insane and a juvenile misuse of the body, and mock’s God’s Design. It is especially puerile and deviant and such an artificial attempt at “feeling” love. True love never removes human dignity and respect by misusing the body. Look at Chastity Bono–how lesbian rape of her when a girl led her to despise her body to such a degree, she injects it with toxins and hates her self—as God Designed her. Such evil is never “love” or healthy.

          • Light_V_Dark

            Mel, the guy that owns this blog is an atheist, but, he GETS IT.
            http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/2012/06/children-of-lesbian-couples-are-not_25.html?m=0

            You remind me of one of my favorite people on the planet»»»Tammy Bruce. I couldn’t care less what consenting adults do in private.

            I would like to make Dan Savage EVAPORATE. In the dictionary, under EVIL, should be this picture—-On his way to hell, I would like to see him pick up Fred Phelps, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez, to name a few.

            Keep banging away at em—

            Addendum; This is a paragraph from the link I provided— Although I am an atheist, I have great respect for the wisdom of ancient times as collected in the Bible. And the command in Leviticus 20:13 that homosexuals should be put to death makes considerable sense to me. In an era when family values are under constant assault, such a return to the basics could be helpful. Nonetheless, I approve of St. Paul’s advice in Romans chapter 1 that it is for God to punish them, not us. In secular terms, homosexuality between consenting adults in private should not be penalized but nor should it be promoted or praised. In Christian terms, “Gay pride” is of the Devil

  • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

    This is a really weak argument. There is nothing about gay marriage that would make proponents supporters of big government, abortion, or some sort of secular relativism.

    Gay marriage is a civil legal matter, and for supporters of limited government, whether married people are having sex at all is simply not something with which government has any legitimate interest in.

    Religion might but a limited government cannot.

    Only big government pseudo-conservatives could possibly think that a) government has an interests in the private consensual sex lives of couple, and b) government should replace religious institutions as the enforcer of the moral law. Lacing government in charge of ensuring that couples comply with God;s law does both of the these things, is horribly misguided, and NO, is NOT conservative.

    • TribeofLiberty

      It’s not that gay marriage supporters (which really means sexless marriage supporters, as I outlined in the piece) are explicitly in favor of bigger government. The article is not about the of type of sexual activity the people are (or are not) engaging in. The article talks about what happens when gender references are removed from the law in order to accommodate gay couples: the institution of marriage becomes sexless.

      The argument is this: marriage does not exist without sex (gender). Marriage is the basis for family. The family is one institution which serves to limit the government. Destroying marriage destroys the family which allows the government to expand to fill in the vacuum created by the legitimate needs that were previously met by the family. Therefore sexless marriage as a policy can never be a conservative position.

      I don’t think it’s a weak argument, in fact I think it’s an extremely strong argument. But you’re not the first person to be confused, so I will work on making it more clear. Thanks for your feedback.

      • Guest

        .

      • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

        And I’m sorry that I misinterpreted your argument.

        Of course, the argument that government NOT taking gender into consideration in the marriage laws somehow destroys marriage makes LESS sense to me than the argument I thought you had made.

        I’m not just trying to be adverse here: I’m trying to understand! And I can see how you can personally oppose gay marriage. I can see how a church would not acknowledge gay unions.

        But I do NOT see how the government accepting marriage licenses from same sex couples is damaging to other citizens. I think you are using sex meaning “gender” and sex meaning “the act of sex” interchangeably, and I can sort of follow that. But how does government have a legitimate interest in whether couples are engaging in sex – or what gender citizens are at all?

        Do YOU really want government looking into whether couples are engaging in sex?

        The reason that “no one else seemed confused” is because you are preaching to the choir – and echo chambers rarely say anything surprising back at you. This isn’t your fault, but a function of politics on the net.

        Anyway, thanks for the read. Always interesting to read other arguments!

        • TribeofLiberty

          I do not mind that you misunderstood, really. I’m glad you voiced what you thought it was. But again, I am not talking about the sexual activities of the people involved, or the government getting involved somehow in monitoring or verifying those activities. Period. I’m talking about the issue from a policy perspective, not the perspective of what a particular couple is doing (or not doing) in their bedroom. So just set aside that question because it’s not what I’m talking about at any point.

          I said that you were not the first person to be confused… but you were confused about this as well, so now I’m really wondering.

          As far as the words sex vs gender, I am using them interchangeably. The dictionary verifies that I am correct in doing this.

          Regardless of any of that, I think the best way for me to describe this whole thing is like this: when I see a photo of two women in white wedding gowns, holding hands in a wedding ceremony, I wonder to myself: “Do they realize that they are not brides? Do they realize what their own marriage license says? Do they realize that the policy they fought for did not give them what they sought?”

          Consider this: so called same sex marriage is a policy that guarantees equality of outcome. It wasn’t fair that only hetero women could be brides, and only hetero men could be grooms….. so now no woman gets to be a bride, and no man gets to be a groom.

          • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

            Yeah, it’s a bigger change than most gay marriage advocates give it credit for being.

            Anyway, I think I understand your position better now, even if I’m not in agreement in the long run. So thank you!

          • Kevin

            I think your argument confuses reducing the government’s role in marriage with expanding the definition of marriage which actually increases the government’s role. The former could be considered “conservative”, but the latter would be “progressive”.

            Traditional marriage is based upon procreation and raising those children. Gender is obviously relevant to procreation, and to the extent that being raised by both your mother and your father is the ideal, gender may be relevant to raising children, too.

            If we abandon that procreation and children criteria, then there is no social good basis for marriage and no reason for the government to discriminate against the non-married.

            However, we could redefine marriage to be simply based upon having (or adopting) children, but that provides no meaningful limit on the number of partners (polygamy) or whether they are blood related (incest, sister-sister, father-son, etc.) as we currently have.

            Personally, I lean libertarian, so I would remove the government from marriage.

          • Kevin

            I think your argument confuses reducing the government’s role in marriage with expanding the definition of marriage which actually increases the government’s role. The former could be considered “conservative”, but the latter would be “progressive”.

            Traditional marriage is based upon procreation and raising those children. Gender is obviously relevant to procreation, and to the extent that being raised by both your mother and your father is the ideal, gender may be relevant to raising children, too.

            If we abandon that procreation and children criteria, then there is no social good basis for marriage and no reason for the government to discriminate against the non-married.

            However, we could redefine marriage to be simply based upon having (or adopting) children, but that provides no meaningful limit on the number of partners (polygamy) or whether they are blood related (incest, sister-sister, father-son, etc.) as we currently have.

            Personally, I lean libertarian, so I would remove the government from marriage.

          • Kevin

            I think your argument confuses reducing the government’s role in marriage with expanding the definition of marriage which actually increases the government’s role. The former could be considered “conservative”, but the latter would be “progressive”.

            Traditional marriage is based upon procreation and raising those children. Gender is obviously relevant to procreation, and to the extent that being raised by both your mother and your father is the ideal, gender may be relevant to raising children, too.

            If we abandon that procreation and children criteria, then there is no social good basis for marriage and no reason for the government to discriminate against the non-married.

            However, we could redefine marriage to be simply based upon having (or adopting) children, but that provides no meaningful limit on the number of partners (polygamy) or whether they are blood related (incest, sister-sister, father-son, etc.) as we currently have.

            Personally, I lean libertarian, so I would remove the government from marriage.

          • ken

            Allowing gay CIVIL marriage in no way prevents heterosexual women from being brides and heterosexual men from being grooms. Civil marriage has nothing to do with a wedding ceremony. Many marriage license forms don’t say “bride” or “groom” on them that in no way stops them from being brides and grooms.

  • NoSurrender

    Marriage is a long established institution that exists for a number of purposes. It is about much more than pair bonding.

    Homosexuals cannot fit into the definitionof marriage as it is a union between a man and a woman for a variety of purposes. Many of these purposes enjoy the protection of law.

    Homosexuals in their campaign to enter the mainstream have colonised institutions ( and words such as Gay ) in increasingingly strident attempts to be considered an alternative lifestyle. Conservatives would be those who would resist this redefinition.

    This is where it becomes a Conservative issue. traditional values are being undermined by homosexuals in their efforts to colonise main stream values.

    Homosexuals can live together and sodomise themselves or whatever they do as much as they like but they simply cannot have any sort of marriage unless conservatives roll over and abdicate on the traditional definition of marriage.

    Those who fail to do so are not conservatives but social progressives along the homosexual lobby to redefine things to suit themselves.

  • Light_V_Dark

    WARNING…WGS (Weapons_Grade_Sarcasm) FOLLOWS…IT HAS BEEN KNOWN TO ACTUALLY KILL HIPPIES AND OTHER VERY-SENSITIVE-PEACEFUL-&-GAY PEOPLE…sorry…
    —————————————————————————
    Is there a Conservative Argument, to FIND AND DESTROY, THE ELUSIVE, but, all too real, CARBON- FOOTPRINT, AND ITS PURVEYORS?
    ——-
    To, BAN ALL RELIGIONS, that use the Bible?
    ——-
    To begin celebrating 0mama’s Birthday, as a NATIONAL HOLY-DAY?
    ——————-
    Force women to have abortions, unless, they give the second GIRL CHILD, to a Lesbian couple, boys to Gay-Men?
    —————
    Confiscate ALL private property?
    —————
    Make self defense COMPLETELY ILLEGAL?
    ——————–
    Ban the production of all ANIMAL FLESH FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION…KILLING ANIMALS IS ICKY?
    ————————
    Ban engines that use fossil fuels?
    ———————–
    Have an Hellenic Revival, as Gaydolph tried…(ALL GAY ARMY)?
    ————————-
    Give Government-Grants to The-Occupied(by demons) to build guillotines, gallows, gulags and crosses?
    ————————-
    And, FINALLY…Supply DISCOUNTED razor blades to EVERYBODY, who doesn’t TOE THE PARTY LINE? Blades will be delivered and DEMONSTRATED, by Flying-Monkeys, Orcs, Morlocks and Femarxists, for your CONVIENCE, SAFETY, PRIVACY AND COOPERATION.

    R-H-E-T-O-R-I-C-A-L!

    HAVE A NICE ####ING DAY, OR WE’LL ####ING KILL YOU…YOU GOT THAT, YOU PIGS? ALLAHU AKBAR!!!!
    http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh205/dishmael_bucket/funnysuicide.gif

  • Light_V_Dark

    Wisdom and Adulthood are DEAD…

    From an atheist, by the name of John Jay Ray..
    http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/2012/06/children-of-lesbian-couples-are-not_25.html?m=0
    Although I am an atheist, I have great respect for the wisdom of ancient times as collected in the Bible. And the command in Leviticus 20:13 that homosexuals should be put to death makes considerable sense to me. In an era when family values are under constant assault, such a return to the basics could be helpful. Nonetheless, I approve of St. Paul’s advice in Romans chapter 1 that it is for God to punish them, not us. In secular terms, homosexuality between consenting adults in private should not be penalized but nor should it be promoted or praised. In Christian terms, “Gay pride” is of the Devil.
    http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh205/dishmael_bucket/van-helsing.jpg

  • Light_V_Dark

    So much of our civilization, is founded upon the EVIL, of the Gay-Pederast-GOD-HATING-Fabian-SOCIALISTS.
    From PC Watch;

    So why do Leftists say “There is no such thing as right and wrong” when backed into a rhetorical corner? They say it because that is the predominant conclusion of analytic philosophers. And, as Keynes** said: “Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air (GOD), are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler (to the Bible) of a few years back.”

    And..
    http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/03.12/keynes.html
    **John Maynard Keynes: Bolshevik, Lavender, Pervert, Pedophile
    Zygmund Dobbs

    • Light_V_Dark

      Note; Judas Iscariot was the INTELLECTUAL-SCHOLAR of the 12. What a HOOT, if he were GAY¿?
      §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
      John 12:5—
      Why wasn’t the perfume SOLD, and the money given to the poor, it was worth a year’s wages¿?, Judas queried.
      —-
      http://bible.cc/john/12-5.htm

      He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

      LIBERALS HAVE BEEN WITH US, FOR A LONG, LONG TIME¡!

  • Light_V_Dark

    Millions upon millions of divorced dads, have ALREADY been either neutered or vaporized by Femarxists, long before they recruited the Gays, to go on a rampage.

    I try to stay away from anecdotal stuff, but, I AM AN ANECDOTE. My latest missive from Hell····
    ————–
    The autumn before Darrell Des###### died, he had shoveled copious amounts of dirt into my oil tank, while I was in exile in Manchester, NH. His Daughter, C, had taken out a bogus restraining order on me, in Conway, NH, which is 100 miles away from where I SCARED HER. I was afraid to go home, fearing she would say I VIOLATED IT, AGAIN. That, was a $3000.00 repair, the following spring.
    —–
    Darrell had stolen his half of the land in 1998, when I was INSANE, from having my character assassinated in divorce court in Marxachusetts. And, losing the right to see my children from my vindictive ex, a Swarm of man-hating-feminists, spineless judges, and gay boys.
    ——
    C and her dad had employed the NH state troopers, attempting to KILL ME, after they assassinated my character, up here.
    —–
    Since Darrell passed on (from his own karma and alcoholism @ 48), C, a couple of Feral-Mannish-Boys and a half dozen (SLED?) dogs are staying on the lot, which is in probate, has no water source or septic system or any livable buildings. 5 or 6 sheds in various degrees of completion, the outhouse I built in 1997, several dog houses, and a few camping trailers.

    —–

    Evil people WILL DIE, TRYING TO GET REVENGE (I believe that C, FEELS, I murdered her father).
    ——
    It seems that, the boys have been putting water in my snow blower’s gas tank. I managed on SEVERAL occasions, to overcome the small amount with some rubbing alcohol. I even traded in my blower, earlier this season.

    Well, they fixed it THIS, time. No amount of alkie, could have neutered what you see in the pic. The man at the repair place said, THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY, THAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED BY ACCIDENT. I believe I will have to take the gallon and a half, that I had recently bought, and throw it out, or pour it into a bigger tub to separate the water out of it. I LOVE, to play with gasoline.
    —–
    So, people, THIS, is what TERRORISM looks like in Amerika. REMEMBER, the 0mamessiah is putting over 300 armed drones in our skies, so we will be NICE. I truly hope, He sends an Hellfire_Missle through my bedroom window some night, when I’m in a DEEP-SLEEP. This is getting redundant.
    —-

    USA, RIP,

    David Me######

    • Light_V_Dark

      I have to confess something to you all»»»I Have converted to Islam, had a sex_change, get around in a wheelchair, wear a FULL BURQA, WITH A 1/4” slot for my peepers, MANAGE THE BIGGEST PLANNED PARENTHOOD IN THE STATE, BELONG TO CODE PINK, and, head up the Democrat Party, in Concord, NH. ALLAHU AKBAR, INFIDEL_DOGS»»»HOW DO YOU LIKE ME, NOW¿?

  • ken

    “Some here may recall that in 2011, the Dept. of State tried to replace
    the words “mother and father” with “parent 1 and parent 2” from passport
    applications in a bow to LGBT pressure”

    No, it was in recognition of the fact that some gay couples are parents and that “mother” and “father” may not be appropriate for all applicants.”

    “traditional marriage will cease to exist as a public policy. Without gender, how can it?”

    because ‘traditional marriage’ (i.e. opposite gender marriage) will still happen even those gay marriage is allowed. Just as same-race marriages didn’t stop happening when inter-racial marriages were allowed.

    “1. Does marriage exist without sex?”

    for civil marriage it does.

    “2. Do we really believe that it will be a good thing to eliminate traditional marriage as a distinct policy?”

    I do, because it is “distinct:” it is discriminatory. How does allowing gays to civilly marry stop straights from marrying? Or in any way affect straight marriage? (other than changing some wording on forms?)

    “3. What will society look like after a generation has passed without traditional marriage as a distinct policy?”

    I’d say it will look much less discriminatory. Just like today’s society does compared to when marriage had a same-race requirement.

    As to conservative argument, consider this quote (don’t remember who said it):

    “Today’s conservative is yesterday’s liberal.”

    that is certainly true for social conservatives. For example, take any conservative’s view about inter-racial marriage then apply that to the views of conservatives 50-60 years ago. they would think today’s conservative is a “bleeding heart liberal” Frankly even some of the liberals from that time might consider him too liberal :).

  • helioquois

    I believe there is a conservative argument for civil unions, but not for gay marriage. The current push for gay marriage shatters the traditional, centuries old, definition so that it no longer has any meaning…it opens the door for marriage that is polygamous in addition to those that want to marry the tree in their yard or the neighbor’s cat. Marriage, as traditionally defined, is available for everyone…there is no discrimination as there is equity under the law. In our Declaration of Independence, the words “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness” indicate to me that those with life have the liberty to co-join with others in a homosexual partnership…to fulfill their idea of happiness and be free to do so, even if it is a relationship that deviates from the normal joining of a man and woman. We are smart enough as a people to understand that the law is a useful tool to secure and protect our liberty, so that we should be able to protect the decisions of folks that choose to join in a homosexual relationship. All we have to do is the work to make it so, but our legislators are lazy, and the gay lobby wants normalization via the law, and social/cultural acceptance of their “marriage” on equal footing with the traditional–but it just isn’t so. The government’s interest (as I see it) in marriage (as beneficial to society) and in civil unions (beneficial to gay individuals) has to do with the disposition and protection of property, properly joined in marriage or civil union, that occurs upon the passing of a spouse (for marriage) or partner (in civil unions); as well as where the decision authority lies for the difficult “life and death” issues. There is no doubt that our laws and traditions permit and promote the life affirming aspects of marriage because it allows our society and people to perpetuate themselves for posterity–gay marriage does not do this, nor does a civil union. However, a civil union does not get in the way of traditional marriage because it is a tolerated relationship, permitted under the law with protections of property, not a promoted one whereby there is moral and ethical equivalence between two very different types of relationships (straight marriage versus gay marriage) with different effects on society.

TIGER BALLS: UFC Fighter Under Fire For Pic of Him Cupping Tiger’s Balls
OSTEEN IS OSTUPID: “When you worship and obey God, we’re not doing it for God, we’re doing it for our self, that’s what makes God happy!”
SHUT THE FRONT DOOR: The Best Chart To Shut Libs Up On Gun Control
MORE on the IRS/Lois Lerner Email Front?
CAN’T FIX STUPID: Ferguson Inspires Race Baiters to Pop Off Again
CHICAGO CRONY CAPITALISM: Fire Sale in the Windy City!
ISLAMIC JEW-HATRED: The Crescent Moon Rising
Load more