Can conservatives maintain their views on gay marriage?

[YoungRepublican]

So, with gay marriage now legal in 12 states support currently over 50% is there anyway conservatives can maintain their views on the matter? 26% rise in approval in just 15 years and the number shows no signs of stopping. Is there a legitimate argument or is this just the civil rights fight all over again where the older generation eventually caves into modernity.

 

[Avatar4321]

Im not going to support the regulation of Homosexual relationships. Nor am I going to call such a relationship a marriage any more than im going to start calling cats dogs.

Doesn't matter if the population goes another way. The beauty of the United States is we are allowed to stand for what's right even if the rest of the nation goes the wrong way.

 

[YoungRepublican]

Im not going to support the regulation of Homosexual relationships. Nor am I going to call such a relationship a marriage any more than im going to start calling cats dogs.

Doesn't matter if the population goes another way. The beauty of the United States is we are allowed to stand for what's right even if the rest of the nation goes the wrong way.

But what will you do when support is at 60 percent? Then 65, then 70.. I just don't see any possible way for politicians to hold their traditional views in the modern election process.. How is that going to sit with the radical religious folks in this country?

 

[Avatar4321]

Im not going to support the regulation of Homosexual relationships. Nor am I going to call such a relationship a marriage any more than im going to start calling cats dogs.

Doesn't matter if the population goes another way. The beauty of the United States is we are allowed to stand for what's right even if the rest of the nation goes the wrong way.

But what will you do when support is at 60 percent? Then 65, then 70.. I just don't see any possible way for politicians to hold their traditional views in the modern election process.. How is that going to sit with the radical religious folks in this country?

Why would I have to change if others decide poorly?

Besides, I fully expect a counter culture to arise. One that is for morality and liberty. We are already starting to see it.

 

[YoungRepublican]

Im not going to support the regulation of Homosexual relationships. Nor am I going to call such a relationship a marriage any more than im going to start calling cats dogs.

Doesn't matter if the population goes another way. The beauty of the United States is we are allowed to stand for what's right even if the rest of the nation goes the wrong way.

But what will you do when support is at 60 percent? Then 65, then 70.. I just don't see any possible way for politicians to hold their traditional views in the modern election process.. How is that going to sit with the radical religious folks in this country?

Why would I have to change if others decide poorly?

Besides, I fully expect a counter culture to arise. One that is for morality and liberty. We are already starting to see it.

Im sure the bigots of the 60's saw a "counter culture" rising against the civil rights movement, but that never happened. I'm sure the sexists of the early 20th century saw a "counter culture" against womens sufferage. Now today there is a "counter culture" rising against same sex marriage. 12 states down and many more have legislation waiting in the wings. History doesnt work backwards my friend, it only moves forward leaving the uneducated behind.

 

[Mertex]

Im not going to support the regulation of Homosexual relationships. Nor am I going to call such a relationship a marriage any more than im going to start calling cats dogs.

Doesn't matter if the population goes another way. The beauty of the United States is we are allowed to stand for what's right even if the rest of the nation goes the wrong way.

But what will you do when support is at 60 percent? Then 65, then 70.. I just don't see any possible way for politicians to hold their traditional views in the modern election process.. How is that going to sit with the radical religious folks in this country?

You don't have to accept same-sex marriage to support a law allowing it. It doesn't have anything to do with the sanctity of marriage anymore than heterosexual couples who make a mockery of marriage do (example Kim Kardashian).

It all has to do with "civil" law, allowing same sex couples to receive the same benefits that married couples are entitled to, such as in taxes, in visitation rights, etc., etc. Same sex couples marrying will not impact my marriage. It also does not make me a sinner because I'm okay with the idea of allowing same-sex marriage.

Religious folks are taking ownership of a problem or as they probably see it "a sin" that they are not responsible for. Same sex couples are probably already living together, and for Christians, that is also against God's commands, and yet Christians are not responsible for that, so how is allowing them to marry any different?

 

[YoungRepublican]

Im not going to support the regulation of Homosexual relationships. Nor am I going to call such a relationship a marriage any more than im going to start calling cats dogs.

Doesn't matter if the population goes another way. The beauty of the United States is we are allowed to stand for what's right even if the rest of the nation goes the wrong way.

But what will you do when support is at 60 percent? Then 65, then 70.. I just don't see any possible way for politicians to hold their traditional views in the modern election process.. How is that going to sit with the radical religious folks in this country?

You don't have to accept same-sex marriage to support a law allowing it. It doesn't have anything to do with the sanctity of marriage anymore than heterosexual couples who make a mockery of marriage do (example Kim Kardashian).

It all has to do with "civil" law, allowing same sex couples to receive the same benefits that married couples are entitled to, such as in taxes, in visitation rights, etc., etc. Same sex couples marrying will not impact my marriage. It also does not make me a sinner because I'm okay with the idea of allowing same-sex marriage.

Religious folks are taking ownership of a problem or as they probably see it "a sin" that they are not responsible for. Same sex couples are probably already living together, and for Christians, that is also against God's commands, and yet Christians are not responsible for that, so how is allowing them to marry any different?

You dont have to support same sex marriage to support a law allowing it to happen? really? What if I told you I dont like the ACA, but ill vote for it anyway because.. well I dont know.. Why would I vote for it if I didnt support it?

 

[Avatar4321]

Im sure the bigots of the 60's saw a "counter culture" rising against the civil rights movement, but that never happened. I'm sure the sexists of the early 20th century saw a "counter culture" against womens sufferage. Now today there is a "counter culture" rising against same sex marriage. 12 states down and many more have legislation waiting in the wings. History doesnt work backwards my friend, it only moves forward leaving the uneducated behind.

The only difference is the bigots are the ones trying to regulation homosexual relationships.

And considering the vast majority of the States have Constitutional Amendments defining marriage, if you think you are going to get more than 12 states, you aren't likely to see many more.

Why are you in favor of regulating their relationships? Dont you think they can determine their own relationships for themselves?

 

[Avatar4321]

Im not going to support the regulation of Homosexual relationships. Nor am I going to call such a relationship a marriage any more than im going to start calling cats dogs.

Doesn't matter if the population goes another way. The beauty of the United States is we are allowed to stand for what's right even if the rest of the nation goes the wrong way.

But what will you do when support is at 60 percent? Then 65, then 70.. I just don't see any possible way for politicians to hold their traditional views in the modern election process.. How is that going to sit with the radical religious folks in this country?

You don't have to accept same-sex marriage to support a law allowing it. It doesn't have anything to do with the sanctity of marriage anymore than heterosexual couples who make a mockery of marriage do (example Kim Kardashian).

It all has to do with "civil" law, allowing same sex couples to receive the same benefits that married couples are entitled to, such as in taxes, in visitation rights, etc., etc. Same sex couples marrying will not impact my marriage. It also does not make me a sinner because I'm okay with the idea of allowing same-sex marriage.

Religious folks are taking ownership of a problem or as they probably see it "a sin" that they are not responsible for. Same sex couples are probably already living together, and for Christians, that is also against God's commands, and yet Christians are not responsible for that, so how is allowing them to marry any different?

There are no laws preventing homosexuals from entering any relationship they wish or calling it whatever they want. The issue is recognition and regulation. Should the government recognize and regulate such relationships. Why would anyone who believes in small government want to empower the state to regulate more relationships than they already do?

 

[Mertex]

But what will you do when support is at 60 percent? Then 65, then 70.. I just don't see any possible way for politicians to hold their traditional views in the modern election process.. How is that going to sit with the radical religious folks in this country?

You don't have to accept same-sex marriage to support a law allowing it. It doesn't have anything to do with the sanctity of marriage anymore than heterosexual couples who make a mockery of marriage do (example Kim Kardashian).

It all has to do with "civil" law, allowing same sex couples to receive the same benefits that married couples are entitled to, such as in taxes, in visitation rights, etc., etc. Same sex couples marrying will not impact my marriage. It also does not make me a sinner because I'm okay with the idea of allowing same-sex marriage.

Religious folks are taking ownership of a problem or as they probably see it "a sin" that they are not responsible for. Same sex couples are probably already living together, and for Christians, that is also against God's commands, and yet Christians are not responsible for that, so how is allowing them to marry any different?

You dont have to support same sex marriage to support a law allowing it to happen? really? What if I told you I dont like the ACA, but ill vote for it anyway because.. well I dont know.. Why would I vote for it if I didnt support it?

Yes, really. If you are against same sex marriage for religious reasons, you are not committing a sin because the law is passed. If the majority of Americans support it, it will eventually become law, but that doesn't mean that you have to be okay with it. As long as you don't marry someone from the same sex as you, you're not violating any religious belief.

How does couples of the same sex marrying each other affect you or change your life in any way?

As for the ACA, it is already a law, there's no voting for it required, it's a done deal. Why would anyone not be okay with everyone being able to afford health care insurance?

 

[YoungRepublican]

But what will you do when support is at 60 percent? Then 65, then 70.. I just don't see any possible way for politicians to hold their traditional views in the modern election process.. How is that going to sit with the radical religious folks in this country?

You don't have to accept same-sex marriage to support a law allowing it. It doesn't have anything to do with the sanctity of marriage anymore than heterosexual couples who make a mockery of marriage do (example Kim Kardashian).

It all has to do with "civil" law, allowing same sex couples to receive the same benefits that married couples are entitled to, such as in taxes, in visitation rights, etc., etc. Same sex couples marrying will not impact my marriage. It also does not make me a sinner because I'm okay with the idea of allowing same-sex marriage.

Religious folks are taking ownership of a problem or as they probably see it "a sin" that they are not responsible for. Same sex couples are probably already living together, and for Christians, that is also against God's commands, and yet Christians are not responsible for that, so how is allowing them to marry any different?

There are no laws preventing homosexuals from entering any relationship they wish or calling it whatever they want. The issue is recognition and regulation. Should the government recognize and regulate such relationships. Why would anyone who believes in small government want to empower the state to regulate more relationships than they already do?

Uh there are laws.. Ever hear of DOMA? You are the ones who are regulating who and who is not recognized by the government as officially married. So by stating in the eyes of the law two people can not be legally binded you are saying that two people dont have the right to file shared tax returns, they dont have the ability to make a decision on their significant others medical care, they cant eve get a couples discount at the local bed and breakfast.. Where is all this hate coming from?

And you think its gonna stop at 12 states? HA, see ya in 5 years when the counts at 20..

 

[Mertex]

But what will you do when support is at 60 percent? Then 65, then 70.. I just don't see any possible way for politicians to hold their traditional views in the modern election process.. How is that going to sit with the radical religious folks in this country?

You don't have to accept same-sex marriage to support a law allowing it. It doesn't have anything to do with the sanctity of marriage anymore than heterosexual couples who make a mockery of marriage do (example Kim Kardashian).

It all has to do with "civil" law, allowing same sex couples to receive the same benefits that married couples are entitled to, such as in taxes, in visitation rights, etc., etc. Same sex couples marrying will not impact my marriage. It also does not make me a sinner because I'm okay with the idea of allowing same-sex marriage.

Religious folks are taking ownership of a problem or as they probably see it "a sin" that they are not responsible for. Same sex couples are probably already living together, and for Christians, that is also against God's commands, and yet Christians are not responsible for that, so how is allowing them to marry any different?

There are no laws preventing homosexuals from entering any relationship they wish or calling it whatever they want. The issue is recognition and regulation. Should the government recognize and regulate such relationships. Why would anyone who believes in small government want to empower the state to regulate more relationships than they already do?

But there is no law allowing them to enter into "marriage" at the Federal level. It could be called civil unions (for those who feel that "marriage" is a sacred word), but the benefits that have been offered under the name of "civil unions" are not the same as those under "marriage" - and that is why they want to be considered "married". The government has to be involved because they are the ones that set up the tax codes and rules, and could keep hospitals and other institutions from discriminating.

 

[YoungRepublican]

You don't have to accept same-sex marriage to support a law allowing it. It doesn't have anything to do with the sanctity of marriage anymore than heterosexual couples who make a mockery of marriage do (example Kim Kardashian).

It all has to do with "civil" law, allowing same sex couples to receive the same benefits that married couples are entitled to, such as in taxes, in visitation rights, etc., etc. Same sex couples marrying will not impact my marriage. It also does not make me a sinner because I'm okay with the idea of allowing same-sex marriage.

Religious folks are taking ownership of a problem or as they probably see it "a sin" that they are not responsible for. Same sex couples are probably already living together, and for Christians, that is also against God's commands, and yet Christians are not responsible for that, so how is allowing them to marry any different?

You dont have to support same sex marriage to support a law allowing it to happen? really? What if I told you I dont like the ACA, but ill vote for it anyway because.. well I dont know.. Why would I vote for it if I didnt support it?

Yes, really. If you are against same sex marriage for religious reasons, you are not committing a sin because the law is passed. If the majority of Americans support it, it will eventually become law, but that doesn't mean that you have to be okay with it. As long as you don't marry someone from the same sex as you, you're not violating any religious belief.

How does couples of the same sex marrying each other affect you or change your life in any way?

As for the ACA, it is already a law, there's no voting for it required, it's a done deal. Why would anyone not be okay with everyone being able to afford health care insurance?

Ok the ACA was a metaphor.. Come on lets follow along.. If you are against same sex marriage you arent going to vote for it. Are you going to run on the platform of saying one thing and voting another way? You know how accepting the American public is of that. I am saying there is no way in the future a politician can run on a platform against same sex marriage (unless you're running in a bible thumping state).we need to just get it out of the way.

 

[Mertex]

You dont have to support same sex marriage to support a law allowing it to happen? really? What if I told you I dont like the ACA, but ill vote for it anyway because.. well I dont know.. Why would I vote for it if I didnt support it?

Yes, really. If you are against same sex marriage for religious reasons, you are not committing a sin because the law is passed. If the majority of Americans support it, it will eventually become law, but that doesn't mean that you have to be okay with it. As long as you don't marry someone from the same sex as you, you're not violating any religious belief.

How does couples of the same sex marrying each other affect you or change your life in any way?

As for the ACA, it is already a law, there's no voting for it required, it's a done deal. Why would anyone not be okay with everyone being able to afford health care insurance?

Ok the ACA was a metaphor.. Come on lets follow along.. If you are against same sex marriage you arent going to vote for it.

True, but if more people are for it, it will get passed.

Are you going to run on the platform of saying one thing and voting another way?

Some politicians do that all the time. But I suppose that if you are truly against it, you would run on a platform against it - like many are doing now. And if more people are for it, those politicians against it, will lose.

You know how accepting the American public is of that. I am saying there is no way in the future a politician can run on a platform against same sex marriage (unless you're running in a bible thumping state).we need to just get it out of the way.

But, most people that are against it, are not going to change their mind on it. They will have to accept it if it is passed, but they will continue to gripe and whine, like they do with ACA.

 

[YoungRepublican]

Yes, really. If you are against same sex marriage for religious reasons, you are not committing a sin because the law is passed. If the majority of Americans support it, it will eventually become law, but that doesn't mean that you have to be okay with it. As long as you don't marry someone from the same sex as you, you're not violating any religious belief.

How does couples of the same sex marrying each other affect you or change your life in any way?

As for the ACA, it is already a law, there's no voting for it required, it's a done deal. Why would anyone not be okay with everyone being able to afford health care insurance?

Ok the ACA was a metaphor.. Come on lets follow along.. If you are against same sex marriage you arent going to vote for it.

True, but if more people are for it, it will get passed.

Are you going to run on the platform of saying one thing and voting another way?

Some politicians do that all the time. But I suppose that if you are truly against it, you would run on a platform against it - like many are doing now. And if more people are for it, those politicians against it, will lose.

You know how accepting the American public is of that. I am saying there is no way in the future a politician can run on a platform against same sex marriage (unless you're running in a bible thumping state).we need to just get it out of the way.

But, most people that are against it, are not going to change their mind on it. They will have to accept it if it is passed, but they will continue to gripe and whine, like they do with ACA.

It will be past, but the ACA and same sex marriage are two totally different animals. My generation doesnt even talk about homosexuality because it is so common that its really a non issue among us. What will happen is when we start being elected to public office it will be quickly passed and moved out of the way for more important issues to be taken care of. The ACA needs help and a lot of it before it can start seeing similar support.

 

[Mertex]

Ok the ACA was a metaphor.. Come on lets follow along.. If you are against same sex marriage you arent going to vote for it.

True, but if more people are for it, it will get passed.


Some politicians do that all the time. But I suppose that if you are truly against it, you would run on a platform against it - like many are doing now. And if more people are for it, those politicians against it, will lose.

You know how accepting the American public is of that. I am saying there is no way in the future a politician can run on a platform against same sex marriage (unless you're running in a bible thumping state).we need to just get it out of the way.

But, most people that are against it, are not going to change their mind on it. They will have to accept it if it is passed, but they will continue to gripe and whine, like they do with ACA.

It will be past, but the ACA and same sex marriage are two totally different animals. My generation doesnt even talk about homosexuality because it is so common that its really a non issue among us. What will happen is when we start being elected to public office it will be quickly passed and moved out of the way for more important issues to be taken care of. The ACA needs help and a lot of it before it can start seeing similar support.

I think once the ACA is fully implemented and people begin to experience the benefits as opposed to what we had before, they will become more friendly toward it. There was the same type of controversy when Medicare was an issue, and now many Republicans, who are the ones that usually balk at every program that benefits the middle-class, are now fighting for Medicare to remain unchanged.

 

[YoungRepublican]

True, but if more people are for it, it will get passed.


Some politicians do that all the time. But I suppose that if you are truly against it, you would run on a platform against it - like many are doing now. And if more people are for it, those politicians against it, will lose.



But, most people that are against it, are not going to change their mind on it. They will have to accept it if it is passed, but they will continue to gripe and whine, like they do with ACA.

It will be past, but the ACA and same sex marriage are two totally different animals. My generation doesnt even talk about homosexuality because it is so common that its really a non issue among us. What will happen is when we start being elected to public office it will be quickly passed and moved out of the way for more important issues to be taken care of. The ACA needs help and a lot of it before it can start seeing similar support.

I think once the ACA is fully implemented and people begin to experience the benefits as opposed to what we had before, they will become more friendly toward it. There was the same type of controversy when Medicare was an issue, and now many Republicans, who are the ones that usually balk at every program that benefits the middle-class, are now fighting for Medicare to remain unchanged.

I cant say that the current version of the ACA is for me personally. Im all for the public option. I think it is the most beneficial aspect, but id like to see it on the state level. It would be able to be more customized to a states needs opposed to the federal version of it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, with gay marriage now legal in 12 states support currently over 50% is there anyway conservatives can maintain their views on the matter? 26% rise in approval in just 15 years and the number shows no signs of stopping. Is there a legitimate argument or is this just the civil rights fight all over again where the older generation eventually caves into modernity.

Most conservatives have maintained their opposition to privacy rights for over 40 years, there’s no reason why they can’t do the same with regard to equal protection rights.

But yes, this is a civil rights issue conservatives will ultimately lose again, just as they lost their fight to keep segregation in place, just as they lost denying minorities their voting rights, just as they lost keeping interracial couples from marrying, just as they lost in their effort to keep in place laws making homosexuality a crime.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It will be past, but the ACA and same sex marriage are two totally different animals. My generation doesnt even talk about homosexuality because it is so common that its really a non issue among us. What will happen is when we start being elected to public office it will be quickly passed and moved out of the way for more important issues to be taken care of. The ACA needs help and a lot of it before it can start seeing similar support.

I think once the ACA is fully implemented and people begin to experience the benefits as opposed to what we had before, they will become more friendly toward it. There was the same type of controversy when Medicare was an issue, and now many Republicans, who are the ones that usually balk at every program that benefits the middle-class, are now fighting for Medicare to remain unchanged.

I cant say that the current version of the ACA is for me personally. Im all for the public option. I think it is the most beneficial aspect, but id like to see it on the state level. It would be able to be more customized to a states needs opposed to the federal version of it.

And that’s the problem the ACA addresses, as there will be states that refuse to provide coverage, such as Florida.

Florida Legislature Refuses to Expand Medicaid Despite Governor's Support | ANCOR

 

[Vandalshandle]

It was 1948, as I recall, that California law was changed that had forbidden interracial marraige. If I remember correctly, the law was challanged in court by a couple, one of which was Chinese, and the other one was black.

Those that do not see the irony and similarity of this to the issue of gay marraige, still have one foot in the 20th century.