A question for conservatives

[Matt McKenzie]

I think we can agree that we are all entitled to our opinion on marriage, but I haven't heard a cogent argument from anyone (here or anywhere else) as to how any marriage agreement between two (or more, for that matter) adults affects me or my marriage in any way. Most of my beliefs tend to fall in the conservative or libertarian camp. I guess on this one, I'm pretty libertarian. I may have religious beliefs that disapprove of homosexuality and polygamy, but that doesn't mean I want to impose my religeous beliefs on everyone in the country any more than I want ANYONE imposing thier religeous beliefs on me. I'm certainly not a believer in "gay rights". As far as I can tell, everybody has the same rights. In my state, I have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, but not someone of the same sex. A gay person has the exact same right. If the law is changed to allow us to marry someone of the same sex, we will still have the exact same right, just a difference in inclination.
I guess I just don't quite understand why folks get so worked up about gay marriage. It's not like if they are allowed to marry, they are going to reproduce and take over the world.

Marvin, you spoke of dishonest goals. Could you elaborate so that I can understand what you mean?

[twall]

Juli,

My wife and I have recently been talking about this. If you leagalize homosexual marriage what is next? Why not polygamy? Why not dirty old perverts marrying minors? Shouldn't it be "their" right?

I do not beleive in homosexual marriage. The definition of marriage has been understood by everyone for several millenia. It dosn't need to be changed now. For too long "we" have allowed things in this country to happen because they didn't hurt or affect us. Now we are facing problems that could have been prevented.

Tom

[Marvin S]

Marvin, you spoke of dishonest goals. Could you elaborate so that I can understand what you mean?

I've hung around life long enough to know that a cause that has received the benefits this group has in the public arena would normally quiet down. That they haven't & are still in the public's face tells me they have not accomplished their mission.

But then again, I could be wrong, they only have their own selfish behavior to worry about so can be as irresponsible as they want.

As the subject of polgamy has been brought up - I see nothing wrong with that action as long as the Head of the Household can support them all. In general, the wacko from Waco & all the others you read about have them on public assistance. I personally don't care to pay for someone else's beliefs &/or pleasures.

Though I don't quite understand how anyone could stand having that many women around!

[Franco]

A question for conservatives
Why should I be opposed to gay marriage?
__________________

It depends on which kind of Conservative you are.

If you are a Limbaugh/Hannity Conservative, you oppose it because they say Republicans should be against it. They are the voice of the failing Republican party and a huge part of the problem of why Repubicans have fallen so far with voters.

If you are a REAL Political Conservative, well...real Political Conservatives don't bother themselves with issues that don't pertain to Defending the Constitution, protecting the citizens, being fiscally responsible and maintaining the infastructure for commerce. Real Conservatives don't get sidetracked by social issues.

Personally, I'm a real Conservative and I don't care what other people do with thier lives as long as it doesn't infringe on my Constitutional Rights! They can call it whatever they want to; gay marriage/union, homo-binding, gay/lesbian merger, whatever...why should I care?

[badbullgator]

I'm not saying that we should all support gay marriage. What I want to know is why should I want it to be illegal?

By the same token why should it be legal. What can marriage give you that a non married couple, be it male/female. male/male, of female/female cannot get. Don't tell me insurance, property rights, or any of that stuff because they can get it, it just may be a little more difficult in some cases, but everything they cry about not have equal rights to are not in fact rights and can be had.
I know several long term non married heterosexuals and they have gone to the extent of having legal documents drafted that allow for every thing that married couples have (i.e. will, HIPPA releases for sharing of medical information, real estate contracts…..). Why is that any different than what a gay couple can do?
I am of the thought that marriage has to do mostly with having children more than anything else and we all know that without help (my help in fact) it is impossiable for a gay couple to get each other pregnant


BTW- I feel the same as MrBootey....not my issue

[Cody Covey]

The reason religious beliefs come into play on this issue is because marriage is a religious instition. No matter which religion it is it's between a man and woman. I don't think government should be in marriage at all. Give everyone a civil union(contract rights that marriage allows) and if you want a civil union go for it i don't care what you do with your life, as long as you take responsibility for your actions (proven fact that homosexuals have higher instance of AIDS therefore you are going to cost more money in health care). I don't want to pay for your fun. Its not mean or cruel but if you ingage in risky behaviors i should not be held responsible for your actions.

[Steve Amrein]

With a failure rate of hetero marriage I cant be believe no hetero folks would desire it.

My brother in law is gay and he and his partner have been together longer than me and my bride of almost 25 years.

Other than the religious reasons which I thought the left is usually using it as a put down or derogatory. Why are they trying so hard to water it down. Its like the similar argument of making QAA a title. It just makes the real thing worth a bit less. I am fine with the civil union thing just call it something different. Kinda the pig in lipstick quote.

[Matt McKenzie]

Tom,
Why NOT polygamy? As far as perverts and minors go, we are discussing consenting adults. Most states do not allow minors to marry. I don't see the strength of that argument.

Mr Booty,
I think you and I are of like mind on this non-issue.

Eildydar,
I don't want may tax dollars paying for anyone's health care, gay or straight, unless they are military, law enforcement or some other necessary government employee.

In my opinion, the only role government should have in the religious institution of marriage is to figure out how to lawfully divvy up the loot in the event of divorce. The same rules should apply regardless of gender of either or both parties.

For the life of me, I just don't get why some folks expend effort fighting gay marriage while our country is being converted from a nation founded on individual liberty into a socialist nanny state. The ship is slowly sinking and we're complaining about the music.

[Hew]

Real Conservatives don't get sidetracked by social issues.

Huh? Remove the social issues and there's very little distinction between Conservatism and Libertarianism. Now, and historically, a large chunk of Conservatism has been rooted in social issues. From civil rights in the 60's, to capital punishment and abortion in the 70's and 80's, on up to gay marriage and federally funded stem cell research now...all have been key issues that have helped unite/motivate Conservatives. A famous Conservative once said in a speech:

The Democratic Party turned its back on the majority of social conservatives during the 1960s. The New Republican Party of the late ’70s and ’80s must welcome them, seek them out, enlist them, not only as rank-and-file members but as leaders and as candidates.

Ronald Reagan wasn't a "real Conservative?"

Nobody has to follow the conservative orthodoxy to the letter in order to be considered a "real conservative," but you darn sure don't get to rewrite the orthodoxy in order to match your beliefs so you can hang a medal around your neck as the ordained "Real Conservative."

[Franco]

Ronald Reagan wasn't a "real Conservative?"

."

No, I don't consider Ron Reagan a real Conservative. He fails in the, "fiscally responsible" category. His Amnesty for illegals was no stoke of Conservatism and neither was the Iran-Contra scandel.