Never Let Our Guard Down


Never Let Our Guard Down
Just a little over three years ago, 56% of Arizona voters decided to add these 20 simple words to our state Constitution:

Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.

While the marriage amendment victory was a critical step to protecting marriage in Arizona, we would be foolish to think our work is done to ensure marriage is never redefined. A recent poll from the liberal Public Policy Polling group claims a smaller margin of Arizona voters now support traditional marriage – 45% say same-sex “marriage” should be illegal, and 44% say it should be legal. Their poll also says that a majority of voters think that Arizona should establish marriage counterfeits like domestic partnerships.

Of course, the poll did not ask whether marriage should be defined as only the union of one man and one woman. The questions were not exactly neutral, and the polling company typically works for those who want to redefine marriage. The obvious intent is to begin laying a foundation to ask Arizona voters to redefine marriage in the next ten years or so.

The poll shows the “never give up” commitment of marriage opponents to eventually win on the marriage issue. These organizations are well funded and are well organized. Marriage opponents will be out registering voters and working hard to influence the 2012 elections. At CAP, our team will never let our guard down in our stand to see marriage stay the union of one man and one woman.

Intern with CAP!
The next legislative session is just a month away, and we’re looking for policy and communications interns for the upcoming legislative session. This is a great opportunity to get first-hand experience working in public policy down at the state legislature. If you know any college students interested, please help us spread the word!
 

Christmas Giving and Tax Credits

I hope you will join me in participating in Arizona’s tax credit opportunities, subject to your accountant’s advice. These programs allow you to give a gift up to a certain amount to schools and non profit organizations and receive a dollar-for-dollar tax credit back for your gift. Here are a few ways to give, and some organizations that have really made a positive impact on our community:

  • Public School Tax Credit: Individuals can receive a tax credit for donations up to $200 and couples up to $400 that go towards extra curricular programs at public or charter schools. Consider giving your public school tax credit to schools in impoverished areas of our state. One to consider is Fay Landrum Academy in south Phoenix.
  • Individual Tax Credit: School Tuition Organizations like Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization (ACSTO), Tuition Organization for Private Schools (TOPS), and Arizona Private Education Scholarship Fund, provide scholarships to thousands of families to choose a private school that best meets their children’s needs. Individuals can receive a dollar-for-dollar tax credit on gifts up to $500, and married couples up to $1,000. Click here to view a complete list of School Tuition Organizations.
  • Charitable Tax Credit: Like the public school credit, individuals can receive a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for gifts up to $200 and married couples can receive a tax credit for gifts up to $400. Consider supporting one of the pregnancy care centers that qualify for the charitable tax credit. Or consider supporting Christian Family Care and their work to find homes for kids in foster care through their Connect One program. Click here to view the complete list of organizations that are eligible for the Charitable Tax Credit.
About Center for Arizona Policy

Comments

  1. Conservative American says:

    Homosexual marriage activists have for years been spreading propaganda that the majority favor homosexual marriage. That is part of their strategy and is known as the “bandwagon” technique of propaganda. Every time that homosexual marriage has been put to a vote of the people, however, it has been rejected. The only way that homosexual marriage has ever become legal in any state is either through legislation without referendum or through judicial activism.

    In North Carolina and Maryland, civic and religious leaders are currently joining to form coalitions to preserve traditional marriage against the monied onslaught of the ultra-left. Conservatives are clear that family is based upon traditional marriage and that family is the most fundamental and essential building block of a strong and healthy America.

    Make no mistake about it. Those who seek to “redefine” tradtitonal marriage are launching an attack against America, seeking to destroy the central pillar of our society, our culture and our individual freedoms. Eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty.

    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke

  2. Nordine Crub says:

    Be very afraid CA – Some gay guy might sneak up behind you and restyle your hair!

    Wouldn’t you just love to be a fly on the wall when these gay guys get together and “dish” about how they are going to destroy the “pillars of our society.”

    Cathy remember when you tried to bite off the entire enchilada and prohibit both gay marriage and gay and straight domestic partnerships? Whoops! Arizona voters weren’t willing to go that far and you lost.

    • Nordine. Who cares what adults do, and no one is hurt getting their hair done, ever ever, and there’s no sin involved to redecorate a house or fifty houses in all the latest styles, so that’s NOT where the concerns come in.
      When you’ve watched a grown man living with another grown man, leave his partner to walk over and give your 5 year old son a long, long once over look one would give a prostitute on a street corner, then it’s a whole new universe of pissed off.

      If frills and facials and formals were all it was about, then who’d care?

      • Yeah, who cares if Megan wants to date Tila? We all know that Megan has her mom’s approval, right? So, get with it!

  3. Donna Gratehouse says:

    Jerry Sandusky has been married to a woman for over 40 years, wanumba. And I wasn’t there when you claim a gay man ogled your son sexually in public right in front of you so it may have happened the way you say. But I also know that conservatives often have some pretty vibrant imaginations about gay people and their sexuality. You’re obviously conflating homosexuality with pedophilia.

    • It happened exactly as I said and his partner who was nearby had no idea his prime squeeze was doing that, so it was pathetic on many levels.

      They were our neighbors for three years, so we saw the other fellow quite frequently over the fence, he was on good terms with all of us … the hard-core rednecks next door, the yuppies on the other side, us, but that man sure picked a creep for a partner. Pretty obvious at that day that he was being used, played for a fool by a man he THOUGHT cared about him. Felt sorry for him.

      Conservatives have been victimized by a campaign of negativity and stereotyping leading people to believe they are not easy to deal with. There are worse things out there in the big old world than being admonished to chose a different lifestyle. That’s manageable nuisances, isn’t it? ANd obviously quite ignorable if one choses to.
      They hang gays in Iran from cranes in public, and not a soul in the USA thinks that’s fair at all, people think it’s barbaric. How come that profound difference isn’t recognized?

      • “They hang gays in Iran from cranes in public, and not a soul in the USA thinks that’s fair at all, people think it’s barbaric. How come that profound difference isn’t recognized?”

        Wow, you mean that because we’re not executing homosexuals in public (well, at least by government fiat), we should be patting ourselves on the back because our bigotry isn’t as bad as Iran’s bigotry?

        Wanumba: Champion of the Lowest Common Denominator

        • Conservative American says:

          If you don’t think that’s a valid point, Klute, go to Iran wearing a pink tutu and hold hands with a guy in leather chaps. America is better than other countries but you are always complaining about America. Why don’t you get your fat liberal butt to North Korea or somwhere nice like that. You know, one of those countries full of Pinkos like you.

          • “America is better than other countries but you are always complaining about America.”

            I do complain about injustice in America, ConAm. I do it because America’s the country that I can make better by changing public opinion, electing leaders, etc. I’m sure the mullahs in Iran aren’t exactly quaking in their boots that I’m against them, but a million other like-minded Americans like me? We can elect a president who, let’s say, lets gays serve openly in the military, or signs the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

            I’m trying to make our country better. You’re sitting on your worthless conservative ass trying to make excuses for the problems we have.

            “You know, one of those countries full of Pinkos like you.”

            No, I think I’ll stay. Make America better by cancelling our your vote at the ballot box.

            • Conservative American says:

              Speaking of sitting on worthless asses, the only time you get off of your fat Pinko butt is to do something, not to make America “better”, but rather to undermine and destroy the most fundamental and essential underpinnings of a strong and healthy America; the American instutution of marriage and the American family. You are in perfect harmony with the views of Karl Marx and expressed in his “Manifesto”.

              • Whatever helps you get through the night, pussycat.

                Just remember, that whenever you enter the voting booth, I’ll be in another voting booth somewhere cancelling yours out, and there’s not a thing you can do about it.

              • Conservative American says:

                You have that backward, Klute. Just remember, that whenever you enter the voting booth, I’ll be in another voting booth somewhere cancelling yours out, and there’s not a thing you can do about it! Nothing at all, LOL!

                Have a nice day, Klutester! :-)

    • And RINOs like the old mayor of Tempe, Neil Guiliano!

  4. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    You’re obviously conflating homosexuality with pedophilia.
    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    SO, what do you call a gay two-timing creep who shacks up with actually reasonable gays to use their house for a base to check out the neighborhood kids? He’s not hetero, that’s a fact.
    Give us a nomenclature and we’ll consider it.
    What do you call a parent who’s just discovered they cannot leave their child in their own backyard unattended for even five minutes because that guy could just be around at any time, reach over the four foot fence and pluck the kid out?

    You want us all to be stupid about this?

  5. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    Donna Gratehouse says:
    December 3, 2011 at 11:51 am
    Jerry Sandusky has been married to a woman for over 40 years, wanumba
    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    What’s your point? His wife was disarming cover for him. The front. Did she want to question him if it meant giving up the comfortable house, the celebrity by association? Plausible deniability as he cheated on her in an especially reprehensible manner? You actually think I’d excuse ANY of THAT? His capacity for lying and using other people surprasses most people’s limits of comprehension, isn’t that right?

    Is there ANYONE in that debacle who did the right thing? Parents who handed their kids over to him, hoping he’d make their kid into a super duper football superstar, believing his duplicitous Flattery of them, and then didn’t NOTICE their kids were freaking out whenever Sandusky oiled past?
    The university that valued the sports millions$$$ over protecting children?

    If it’s wrong it’s wrong. That a lot of people were involved in covering it up is dispicable. If I had one of my sons or daughters in that university, I would have withdrawn them over the weekend the news broke, and sent the school a bill to recover the paid in tuition, demanded all transcripts and records. I do that sort of things. The university exists to serve me as a CLIENT not the other way around. My kids like that I have their backs.

    I notice that even though the very same university is harboring another pathological liar in Manning and Climategate, but no one has removed their student from that corrupt and greedy state school.

    Pathetic. Pritorities today are so screwed up.

  6. Conservative American says:

    There are actually two evils. One is homosexual “marriage” per se and the other is the methods being used by homosexual activists in attempting to bring about homosexual “marriage”. The latter, in and of itself, is destructive or our democratic processes. Let’s shine the spotlight on the methods being used by homosexual “marriage” advocates because that is what they least want people to examine.

    While homosexual “marriage” activists have repeatedly claimed that they have majority support for homosexual “marriage”, they do everything in their power to avoid a popular vote. Voting is fundamental to self-determination and we fought the American Revolutionary War principally to attain the right to self-determination. Homosexual “marriage” advocates would deny us that right.

    Homosexual “marriage” advocates claim that homosexual “marriage” is a right under The Constitution and, as such, should not be voted on. The reality is that unless and until The United States Supreme Court determines that homosexual “marriage” is a constitutional right, it is not. Here we see homosexual “marriage” activists seeking to undermine the rule of law of The Constitution.

    Homosexual “marriage” advocates seek to use the courts and our legal system to promote homosexual “marriage”, as they have done with seeking to overturn Proposition 8 in California. At the same time, they seek to deny that right to their opponents.

    When Obama directed the DOJ to cease defending portions of DOMA, the U. S. House of Representatives sought to take up the defense of that law. The Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual advocacy group, wrote letters to 200 of the nations top law firms urging them to not agree to defend DOMA on behalf of the U. S. House of Representatives. Those promoting homosexual “marriage” sought to deny even the duly elected U. S. House of Representatives the ability to secure a competent legal team to defend DOMA. That is an attempt to undermine our legal system and it is anti-American.

    In Iowa, Michael Gronstal, the top Democrat in the Iowa Senate, has vowed to make certain that the Iowa legislature doesn’t refer a proposed constitutional amendment to voters that would ban gay marriage. This, despite bipartisan support for such action. Gronstal seeks to prevent the people of Iowa from exercising their legal right to amend the Iowa Constitution. He seeks to disempower voters and to deny them their right to self-determination. Why? “I’m not going to write discrimination into the Constitution”, stated Gronstal. Gronstal has set himself above the people, establishing himself as the one person who determines what constitutes “discrimination” and what does not. That is anti-American and undermines our rights and liberties.

    There are countless examples of how homosexual “marriage” advocates are following an “the ends justifies the means” approach, trampling on our democratic processes to get what they want. Klute, one of the liberal posters here at SA, said, regarding homosexual “marriage”: “And whether we do it by public vote, judicial fiat, legislative vote, or presidential order – doesn’t matter.” There it is, right from the horse’s mouth! The will of the majority of the people is irrelevant to homosexual “marriage” advocates. That is anti-American.

  7. Two gay people who love each other and are married, does not affect me or my life in any way that I can think of. Its not an important issue to get so worked up over. Most people love the opposite sex, some don’t, that’s biology.

    There are much more important things to be worried about in this world.

    I always find is so funny to see how personally threatened some people are with this subject. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry someone the same sex. Live and let live, and all that. I’m not a champion of it, not against it, its really not an important issue for me.

    • No problemo. Only gays cannot be “married” in any religious ceremony of any religion that expressly forbids it. “Civil Unions” are legal arrangements set up by the STATE. There’s no religious adherance involved.
      But “marriage” is the word demanded. “Marriage” is a religious ceremony, performed according to religious tenants and traditions.

      God will not approve any “gay” marriage, He will not approve any pastor or priest or clergy who perfoms one. He will not approve any church or congregation which approves one.

      By “gay marriage” it means we have to foresake our religious beliefs, with legal penalties and punishments for not doing so.
      The one who cries “victim” becomes the tyrant.

      “We” means ALL Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists and most of the Pagan religions. That’s A LOT of people that less than 1% of the world’s population are demanding that they have to give up their assurances of eternal salvation for.

      Gay marriage.. eternal salvation… hmmm. Eternity’s a LOOOONG time to regret.

      Why the harsh demand that people be put be forced into such a position?

      • Religion has nothing to do with it, wanumba. Marriage licenses are civil contracts and can be completely out of the realm of spirituality and religion. Legal same-sex marriage is going to threaten the laws or doctrines of any church in America.

        • Religion has EVERYTHING To do with it. Our Constitutuon expressly protects freedom of religion. The STATE COMPELLING a religion to violate it’s teachings, tenets, rules, tradition is TYRANNY.

          There is NO religious compulsion for the STATE to perform CIVIL UNIONS. CHurches may grumble, and debate, but no FORCE of ANYONE is involved. It is not the same thing.

          Radical political gays.. because not all gays agree with this political push, so it’s a minority of a minority, …are not satisfied with “civil unions”. The word they chose is “MARRIAGE.” ANd it is expressly chosen, because it is an attack on people’s freedom to practice their religions.

          Why all the focus on “Christians” when Hindus cannot support gay marriage or Buddhists or Muslims or Jews or most Pagans.. I can’t think of a traditional Pagan religion that allows this.

          Why aren’t the activists satisfied with civil unions? It gives them EVERYTHING they CLAIM they demand.

          • Show me an instance where a church or religious institution has been forced or compelled to change or violate their tenets? CA had an excellent example, but it involves taxpayer dollars. I don’t want my taxes going to churches that aren’t going to follow the secular laws of the land. I think most Americans would agree with me.

            By the way, plenty of Jewish denominations, Christian denominations, Buddhist sects, and pagans (my girlfriend recently attended a Wiccan same-sex ceremony) perform same-sex weddings. And if you come back with some crap about them not being true to their faiths, then shove it. I do not like it when people make the universal assumption that their worldview is infallible.

            • You want to use WICCAN as your example?
              Witchcraft?

              You sure you want to do that?

              WItchcraft here in Africa is absolutely terrifying and usually lethal, especially to children, who are easy to catch and is so muderously bad, people as soon as they are able to, flee zones where witches practice. Certain regions are KNOWN for the prevelance of witchcraft and people avoid them liek the plague. It’s December, BTW. Traditionally, the witches require 6 human sacrifices for their end of year rituals… it’ getting a bit tense out there right now.

              Any so-called “Christian” denomination that performs same sex marriages is in heresy and is condemned by God. That’s it. Haven’t you considered that people didn’t make that rule? God did, so don’t complain to humans about it.
              Too many people don’t want to hear about it, so what human being on this planet would willingly make up a rule that constrains all that?

              • Having been in Buddhist countries and worked long time with actual Buddhists, I wouldn’t call the activity we see in the USA “Buddhism” but “narcissism.”

                It’s NOT what’s normally practiced in other countries.. for centuries upon centuries, so it does stand out as different.

              • Gem upon gem of comedic brilliance. Wanumba delivers.

              • If this were the Dark Ages, wanumba would be travelling from town to down, drowning people for the Lord, hawking copies of the Malleus Maleficarum.

              • Conservative American says:

                This isn’t the Dark Ages and you are travelling from town to town preaching the doctrine of moral relativism wile hawking copies of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” by Karl Marx.

              • Ha, funny. In fact, I did go to a different town this weekend to compete in a poetry slam, and won the top prize. No Marxism though – in fact, I quoted the movie “Red Dawn” twice in two different poems.

              • Conservative American says:

                Congratulations on taking first place, Klute! You must have some talent!

                As regards Communism, Klute, Communists offer the same arguments in support of homosexual “marriage” as do those on SA who support homosexual “marriage”.

                “This understanding of the material basis for the family can be a very liberating truth because it means that these relations between the sexes are not decreed by biology or “just the way people are.” It means that George Bush is wrong when he says that marriage is an “enduring” institution defined as the “union of a man and a woman.” It puts to lie the claim by reactionary Christian theocrats that gay people should not be given the right to marry because the institution of marriage—as it now exists—has been embedded in society for thousands of years. And it means that sexual relationships, marriage and the family can change— that all these things can be transformed in a truly liberating way with the revolutionary transformation of society.”

                http://revcom.us/a/055/family2-en.html

                What is the source of the above quote? As the website states: “This is the official website for Revolution newspaper, voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA.”

                What is the objective of the Communists? It is to eliminate Capitalism, our economic system.

                So the Communists see homosexual “marriage” as a means of destroying Capitalism, the financial underpinning of our nation.

                When you argue, as in the above quote from the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, for homosexual marriage you are, in fact, promoting the Communist agenda.

                Wake up to what you are unknowingly doing, Klute.

              • “And it means that sexual relationships, marriage and the family can change— that all these things can be transformed in a truly liberating way with the revolutionary transformation of society.”

                “What is the objective of the Communists? It is to eliminate Capitalism, our economic system.”

                “So the Communists see homosexual “marriage” as a means of destroying Capitalism, the financial underpinning of our nation.”

                That is a logical fallacy, expressed as: A + B ≠ C

                If the CPUSA put out an article expressing that ice cream was delicious or puppies were cute, that wouldn’t mean that I would stop thinking those things either. And I know we’re we’re comparing orders of magnitudes between ice cream and gay marriage, so let’s compare civil rights for African-Americans and GLBT Americans.

                How many communists were involved in the Civil Rights movement? Bayard Rustin organized one of the first Freedom Rides. And yet, Civil Rights hasn’t led to communism any more than GLBT rights will.

                Sorry, you’re going to have to do way better than wave the Red-Ooga Booga flag.

              • I seem to recall you getting all haughty any time someone (you disagree with) uses a curse word. But, its OK for you?

                Just solidifies your hypocrite status CA.

              • Bayard Rustin was also gay, just for to get it on here for posterity’s sake.

              • Conservative American says:

                Lampoon:

                Oh goodness no, Darling, you are the hypocritux maximus, ROFL!

              • Conservative American says:

                Klute:

                Yes, and Rustin’s career was ruined when he was caught making out with another guy in the back of a car. Brilliant!

              • Typical CA, when you get burned, you just attack.

                Going to keep cussing on this forum? Every time you do it, you make baby Jesus cry.

              • “Yes, and Rustin’s career was ruined when he was caught making out with another guy in the back of a car. Brilliant!”

                And your point is? That the fight for the equal rights of all men is a constant battle until all men and women are accepted for how they were created?

              • Conservative American says:

                Lampoon:

                Typical, Lampoon! your comments are on the level of a two year old, LOL!

                Now head home and have your mommy change your diapers for you.

              • Conservative American says:

                My point being that Rustin’s poor judgement and uncontrolled, perveted sexual appetites resulted in his own destruction. Really good role model! Why don’t you follow his example, Klute.

              • Conservative American says:

                Klute:

                Tell us your views on Communism and Communists, since the Revolutionary Communist Party USA supports your position on homosexual “marriage”.

                Do you see Communism as benign and beneficial?

                Are Communists simply seeking to make America better?

                Does Communism promote strong, healthy American families through supporting things like homosexual “marriage’?

                Are Communists actually seeking to strengthen the relationships between parents and children or do you think that they seek to weaken them?

              • Conservative American says:

                What was that, Klute? I can’t hear you.

              • What was that “Conservative” American? I can’t hear you. (remember all those questions I asked you and you cowardly dodged after several requests?

      • If a religion wants to marry them, what business is it of yours? You believe the earth is 6000 years old, God created gays, therefore, God must have made a mistake (using your “logic”)

        What is the approval process from God to a Pastor? Is a phone call, a registered letter, a fax?

        Yes, Wanumba always delivers, I can imagine the spit that is flying as he types his CAPITAL LETTERS.

        LOL.

        • Well, if I knew how to put in italics, then you wouldn’t see so many caps.

          AS far as God’s approval, that’s been called “Judgment Day,” for about four thousand years at least., so most everyone in history has heard of it. The big gamble of course is “is there a Judgment Day” or “maybe it’s not really going to happen, so I can do whatever I want.”

          Pascal’s Wager is a mathematical proof that the only winning ie safe bet is to act like there IS a Judgment Day, then you’re covered no matter what happens.

          There’re lot of scenes in the Bible that describe people standing in front of God – speechless – completely paralyzed, unable to utter a single syllable of excuse to defend their actions.

        • Conservative American says:

          Are you an atheist, Lampoon? If not, what is YOUR religion? We know that you aren’t Christian. You are anti-Christian. But the question remains as to what you ARE.

  8. One of the most important consequences of the American Revolution and the Constitution of the United States is that the government, along with guaranteeing self-determination, is meant to protect minority rights and their interests from the tyranny of the majority.

    Right now, conservative marriage advocates probably have popular support for their side of the issue. Ten years from now? It’s not going to be there. Like very civil rights issue before us, the traditionalists dig in and fight as long and hard as they can, but always lose in the end. America is changing, and when it comes to this issue, it’s not changing for the worse.

    • Conservative American says:

      Tim wrote: “One of the most important consequences of the American Revolution and the Constitution of the United States is that the government, along with guaranteeing self-determination, is meant to protect minority rights and their interests from the tyranny of the majority.”

      That old homosexual activist line is a bunch of bull, LOL! You have it exactly backwards, ROFL!

      We sought our independence from England precisely to get out from under a tyranny of the minority. We were being dictated to by the small, elite British ruling class who had no regard whatsoever for what the majortiy wanted. Better go back and read you history books, son, LOL!

      • You’re changing the subject from a consequence of the Revolution to a reason for the Revolution. Let’s not confuse the two.

        As for that line being “bull” well, I’m not sure where you are getting your facts, sir. Minority protections are an important part of our legal system and have been since this nation’s founding. I don’t see how you can ignore sixty years of history that has strengthened those protections: the Civil Rights Movement, the fight for women’s right to vote, etc etc.

        To illustrate my point, I present you Federalist Paper #51: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm

        • Conservative American says:

          Excuse me, but let’s put this to rest right now. Where is your evidence that:

          “…government, along with guaranteeing self-determination, is meant to protect minority rights and their interests from the tyranny of the majority.”

          Nowhere is that written, in The Constitution or otherwise. Furthermore, you conveniently assume that homosexual “marriage” is a right. It is not. No such right is explicity granted in The Constitution AND SCOTUS has not interpreted that such a right exists under The Constitution.

          Show me “tryanny of the majority” in The Constitution. You can’t because it isn’t there, LOL!

          • There is no single clause or amendment. Those protections were built straight into the framework of our government and Bill of Rights. Why don’t you read what Mr. Madison had to say about it. I think he knew more about it than you or I. As for the rest, I already addressed that.

            You can keep rolling the floor and laughing out loud, but we all know it’s a nervous laugh.

            • Conservative American says:

              Tim wrote: “There is no single clause or amendment.” Thank you, Tim!

              There are many ideas and concepts but only that which is written into The Constitution is a constitutional principle.

              I’m a patient man. Let’s go over it again, shall we?

              There is NO explicit right to homosexual “marriage” written into The Constitution. Homosexual “marriage” will NOT be a constitutional right unless and until SCOTUS so rules. It really is as simple as that. It is a cut and dry matter of law. Nothing you say will change that one iota.

              If homosexual “marriage” were a constitutional right, there would be no need for homosexual activists to try to get it legislated into existence state by state. There would be no litigation over Proposition 8. Catch my drift? ;-)

    • “Like very civil rights issue before us, the traditionalists dig in and fight as long and hard as they can, but always lose in the end. America is changing, and when it comes to this issue, it’s not changing for the worse.”

      Amen to that Tim.

    • Conservative American says:

      ROFL! :-)

      Tim wrote: “Like very civil rights issue before us…” What “civil right” might that be, LOL! There is no right to homosexual marriage under The Constitution, civil or otherwise. If there were, we would already have homosexual “marriage” in all 50 states. We don’t. Unless and until SCOTUS rules that it is a constitutional right, it isn’t.

  9. Marriage licenses are under the scope of the privileges and benefits the government provides for its citizens. The Constitution prohibits discrimination in doling out these privileges and benefits. Unless marriage laws everywhere are repealed, then the legal institution of marriage is a civil right to all American citizens. The 14th Amendment can’t get any clearer.

    • Conservative American says:

      So says Tim! If that were the case, we would already have homosexual “marriage” in all 50 states. What you are articulating is your contention.

      Homosexual “marriage” is not explicity granted as a right under The Constitution. It will not become a right unless and until SCOTUS rules that it is.

      • Your arguments are downright laughable. This country had a history of discrimination against blacks for a century (after slavery) despite clear legal protections, but those protections weren’t recognized everywhere at once and it took decades to get every state to stop discriminating in their own laws.

        Yes, I am contending that marriage is a right for all Americans, gay or straight. Yes, I know that marriage (for anyone) is not explicitly granted in the Constitution nor has it been ruled upon by the Supreme Court.

        The right to privacy isn’t in the Constitution, either, but the courts have said that it is implied and therefore must be protected. Numerous courts have ruled that marriage is a civil right, including the U.S. Supreme Court. If marriage is a civil right, then logic dictates that it should be offered for all couples and the 14th Amendment would clearly bar any discrimination.

        • Conservative American says:

          Cut the crap, Tim. Show me where it states in The Constitution the principle that we are to protect the minority from a tyranny of the majority. That’s the issue. Where is that written? It isn’t! YOU made that up. It’s YOUR idea and NOT and idea expressed in the Constitution or in any of the writings of the Founding Fathers.

          Tim wrote: “The right to privacy isn’t in the Constitution, either, but the courts have said that it is implied and therefore must be protected.”

          Good! Now show me where SCOTUS has rendered a decision that homosexual “marriage” is an implied right and therefore must be protected. It has NOT and, therefore, no such “right” exists unless and until SCOTUS rules that it does.

          • Are you frickin’ blind? I just cited James Madison, Father of the Constitution, who explains, in depth, how the federal government of the United States, as designed by the Constitution, is meant to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

            Why don’t you cut the crap and debate properly? This is getting tedious and absurd.

            • Conservative American says:

              You did no such thing. You have NOT cited James Madison, in depth, on how The Constitution is meant to protect minorities form a tyranny of the majority. Furthermore, no such principle is stated in The Constitution. Quote that principle to me. word for word, from The Constitution, You can’t because it isn’t there, LOL!

              “Debate properly”? I didn’t know that there was a set of “proper debate” rules posted here at SA. Please point them out to me.

              Tim wrote: “This is getting tedious and absurd.”

              ROFL! Of COURSE it is BECAUSE your assertions are absurd and cannot be proven. In fact, all of the facts serve to disprove your contentions. It IS tedious and absurd when you attempt in vain to prove the unproveable absurd, LOL!

              • Did you not see my link to Federalist Paper No. 51? I suggest you check that again before stating I haven’t cited James Madison and his views on the Constitution and the protection of minorities. I can’t believe you’re arguing against what has been a bedrock principle of American jurisprudence since the nations inception.

                I have provided evidence for such precedents. You, on the other hand, have yet to demonstrate that I am wrong and that there is no such doctrine in our legal system.

              • Conservative American says:

                I’m a patient man, let’s go over it yet again, shall we?

                Quote to me, word for word, from The Constitution where it says that the purpose of The Constitution is to protect the minority from a tyranny of the majority. Now either that is written in The Constitution or it is not. If it is, quote it and cite the reference. I KNOW that you can’t do that because it is NOT written into The Constitution. End of story.

                The Constitution is NOT your interpretation of it. The Constitution is what is written into it. It is a written document precisely so that people like you cannot take liberties with what is says AND with what it does not say.

                Furthermore, YOU have not been empowered to interpret The Constitution. That job is already filled by SCOTUS. If you want to interpret The Constitution then get yourself on The Supreme Court of The United States. Unless and until you do that, your interpretations are legally meaningless.

            • CA can’t debate. He just thinks he can cut and paste and blather on for paragraphs, then he calls you a pinko.

              Its pretty sad, but what you would expect from someone like him.

              • Conservative American says:

                Aw, that ain’t nothin’, Lampoon. You can’t think and you are incapable of uttering a word of truth.

                I only call you a Pinko because you are an anti-Christian Pinko. Tell me, Pinko, do you just hate Christians or do you hate all religions and religious people?

          • Oh, as for a Supreme Court case, I’ll go with Loving v. Virginia, the case that declared all anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional.

            “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 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.”

            Same-sex marriage is implied by this ruling. It wasn’t the subject of the case, nor was it probably on the minds of anyone on the Court. But this ruling states that the 14th Amendment bars discriminating based on race in the legal institution of marriage. The Supreme Court, in Perry v. Texas, ruled that homosexuals are a protected minority.

            Now use your logic and connect the dots.

            • Sorry, that was supposed to be Lawrence v. Texas. I got confused with Perry v. the Governator.

            • Conservative American says:

              This is NOT a question of logic. It is a constitutional question.

              Homosexual “marriage” is nowhere explicity stated as a right in The Constitution. The SCOTUS has NOT made a determination that homosexual “marriage” is a right. END OF STORY! That’s all there is to it. All of your logic and resasoning is completely irrelevant. There is NOTHING which currently upholds homosexual “marriage” as a constitutional right; zero, zip, nada!

              • Nothing explicitly, no. Implied? Absolutely. You have chosen to ignore that evidence. I have no problem “losing” a debate like this to you. I take solace in the fact that one day I will be proven right, and you will be proven wrong. Same-sex marriage will be the law of the land in the United States one day. It’s called progress, and you can’t stop it.

              • Conservative American says:

                “Implied” doesn’t mean squat UNLESS and UNTIL the SCOTUS rules that homosexual “marriage” is a right. Until then, it doesn’t have the force of constitutional law.

                Well, I think that you are overly optimistic regarding the ultimate outcome of all of this for homosexual “marriage”. We’ll see. Neither of us has an infallible crystal ball. That’s part of what keeps life interesting. ;-)

                I think that there is a much bigger question to be addressed here, Tim. Some see homosexual “marriage” as essential to homosexual “equality”, what ever that means. Is that really the case, Tim, or is that an idea that has been promoted but which has no real merit? How do you define LGBT “equality”, Tim?

  10. Conservative American says:

    Tim wrote: “Legal same-sex marriage is (not) going to threaten the laws or doctrines of any church in America.” I added the “not”, Tim, because I think it’s clear that’s what you intended. Simple typo, I believe. ;-)

    Really! Is that so?

    In light of new gay law, agency ends foster care
    Baptist Press
    Nov 15, 2011 Sign-Up SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (BP) — In a case with huge religious liberty implications, Catholic Charities in Illinois has chosen to drop its lawsuit against the state of Illinois and to end its adoption and foster care programs in light of a new gay civil unions law.

    Catholic Charities affiliates in the diocese of Springfield, Joliet and Belleville said Nov. 14 they were dropping the suit, three months after a judge ruled against them. The controversy stems from a civil unions law that went into effect in June and a demand by the Illinois Department of Children & Family Services that all agencies that have contracts with the state must be willing to place children in same-sex homes.

    Saying they would not place children in gay homes, Catholic Charities sued the state, arguing they were exempt from the law, which ironically is called the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act. In August a judge sided with the state, ruling that it didn’t matter what the language of the law said because the state was not required to have a contract with Catholic Charities anyway. In essence, he ruled, the state could have ended the contract even before the law passed.

    Still, there was no hiding the fact that the civil unions law led to the confrontation. The dispute involved only adoptions and foster care contracts that involved state money.

    Following the judge’s ruling, the state of Illinois began moving the approximately 2,000 children under Catholic Charities’ care to other agencies.

    Attorneys who support Catholic Charities say it’s another example of a same-sex law trumping religious liberty.

    “The Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act only passed after specific assurances that the law would not impact the work of religious social service agencies,” Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society said in a statement. “Specific protections for these agencies were written into the law, but unfortunately, Illinois officials refused to abide by those protections.”

    Other states should pay attention, Breen added.

    “This stands as a stark lesson to the rest of the nation that legislators promising ‘religious protection’ in same-sex marriage and civil union laws may not be able to deliver on those promises,” Breen said.

    The civil unions law grants same-sex couples all the state legal benefits of marriage.

    “The decision not to pursue further appeals was reached with great reluctance, but was necessitated by the fact that the state of Illinois has made it financially impossible for our agencies to continue to provide these services,” the bishops of the three diocese said in a statement. “Since we now need to close offices and lay off employees, further appeals would be moot.”

    The diocese of Peoria withdrew from the suit in October.

    http://townhall.com/news/religion/2011/11/15/in_light_of_new_gay_law,_agency_ends_foster_care

  11. Yes, I did indeed meant to put a “not” there, thank you.

    Okay, so there could be some effects, but you’re not going to get me to feel any sympathy for the Catholic Church that is in a position to put kids in loving homes but chooses not to do so based on medieval prejudices. They aren’t being forced to change any of their laws or doctrines. They have that option, chose not to, and therefore aren’t going to get funding from the state.

    • Conservative American says:

      You are most welcome, Tim. We all make typos. ;-)

      I’m not asking for your sympathy, Tim. “Medieval prejudices” is your subjective term, not fact. So what if they are not being forced to change any of their laws or doctrines? They are being forced to refrain from living out those laws and doctrines in their daily lives OR face legal action. That’s “freedom of religion”?

  12. It might not be fact, but it’s closer to reality than the Catholic Church.

    The Church was receiving PUBLIC FUNDS. They would not follow the law. Therefore, they don’t get public funds, I don’t know why this is being perceived as a massive infringement of the freedom of religion.

    • Conservative American says:

      So what that the Catholic Church was receiving public funds? The issue is that they are being prevented by the state from living out their religious beliefs. The fact that that is because of a law is even MORE egregious. So a new law regarding adopting out to homosexuals results in a church being unable to continue adoption services in accordance with their religious beliefs. THAT is a violation of religious liberty, the worse that it has been codified into law!

      • Harvard, Yale , Princeton – 50 of the top law schools for YEARS banned military recruiters from their campuses on the grounds that their campus policies regarding gays trumped the military “don’t ask don’t tell.” The military was recruiting for JAG.. the lawyers branch of the service. The military argued that the schools received federal funds and should allow for recruiters. The appeal took years to get to the Supreme Court, which finally ruled no ban was allowable.

        Meanwhile, the Ivy League dissention ignored that Hillsdale College said it wasn’t going to abide by government mandated non-discrimination policies – which required more admin staff to monitor – on the grounds that Hillsdale’s non-discrimination policy was one of the first in the entire nation, and they didn’t need more busybody admin staff to do what they did normally anyway. They were told if they received ONE PENNY of federal funds, including students loans of ANY NATURE, they HAD to comply. ONE PENNY

        The Ivy Leagues , eating literally BILLIONS of federal funds got a free pass far longer than Hillsdale did, and Hillsdale hadn’t done anything wrong. Unfair application of the law. Hillsdale dumped every last penny of federal funding and set up private funding.

        If the government takes more of our money and says it’s now federal money, then fewer and fewer institutions will be able to operate independently, unable to raise private funds from broke citizens.

        This is a slippery slope to total control.

  13. No, you obviously didn’t read your own article. The Church and its adoption agencies are free to adopt out any of the kids in their custody to whoever they deem fit, EXCEPT IN CASES IN WHICH THE STATE HELPS PAY FOR THAT ADOPTION.

    • Conservative American says:

      No, the article does NOT say that. It says this:

      “The controversy stems from a civil unions law that went into effect in June and a demand by the Illinois Department of Children & Family Services that all agencies that have contracts with the state must be willing to place children in same-sex homes.”

      Now, what is the point you wish to make regarding what the article actually says?

  14. I fail to see how that negates what I said. The Church is contracted with the state for adoptions, which the state helps pay for. If the Church can’t follow the law of the state then it shouldn’t be getting public funds for its operations.

    • Conservative American says:

      Okay, Tim, let’s look at your contention.

      The people of Illinois did NOT vote civil unions into being. It was legislated into being. So how do we know that the taxpayers of Illinois, from which the state of Illinois gets it’s money, support civil unions? Furthermore, the policy requiring that those adoption agencies which have contracts with the state must adopt out to homosexuals wasn’t even legislated into existence. It was a “demand” by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services.

      In other words, the people of Illinois had no direct say regarding how they wanted their tax dollars to be spent. So why all the fuss about tax dollars? It was the “demand” of an agency, not even the state legislature, that tax dollars couldn’t go to agencies which do not adopt out to homosexuals. Where is the will of the people in all this?

      What we have is a state agency making demands which curtail religious freedom based on their whim. THAT is anti-American!

      • Until a court agreed with them. That’s the republican process, every issue is not meant to be on the ballot.

        • Conservative American says:

          The court might never have been involved had the issue been decided directly by the people. You’re right, every issue is not meant to be on the ballot. That would be entirely too cumbersome and incongruent with a representative democracy. However, issues which affect the very basic fabric of our society should be on the ballot.

  15. This is a nice overview of everything I’ve been talking about: http://www.democracyweb.org/majority/principles.php

    My argument has never been that same-sex marriage is a right explicitly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. My argument is that, like the laws against mixed-race marriages, barring same-sex marriage is an unconstitutional practice. I think that recent precedent supports that argument, especially since the Supreme Court has ruled three things thus far:

    1. Marriage is a fundamental right.

    2. The 14th Amendment bars discrimination in the application of marriage laws.

    3. Homosexuals are protected under the 14th Amendment from discrimination.

    My mistake in this argument was giving up a premise: that the issue was whether or not same-sex couples have such a right. That’s not the issue. The issue is really about whether or not the government can discriminate in granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

    • Conservative American says:

      ROLF! The issue is very, very simple, Tim. Is there or is there not a constitutional right to homosexual marriage? The answer is very, very simple. There is NO constitutional right to homosexual marriage. If there were, Proposition 8 would NOT be in the process of being litigated in the courts.

      Let’s go over it again, shall we? The Constitution does NOT explicity state that homoexual “marriage” is a right. The SCOTUS has NOT ruled that homosexual “marriage” is a right. Ergo, homosexual “marriage” is not now a constitutional right.

      Now if you want to argue your case before SCOTUS, by all means, be my guest but unless and until SCOTUS rules that homosexual “marriage” is a constitutional right, it is NOT a constitutional right. Period! There is no gray area. There is no logic or reasoning involved. It’s a matter of constitutional law and SCOTUS rules on that, no one else. End of story, LOL!

      • Again, your argument fails because of what history has shown us. Let’s use a Socratic approach: do you think there is a constitutional right for mixed-race marriage?

        • Never mind, disregard above. I should have read your post more clearly.

          To use mixed-race marriage as an example, it wasn’t a Constitutional right until the Loving v. Virginia ruling, by your logic. I would posit that it was a right before the ruling, but one that was infringed upon by the state. The Court didn’t “make up” a right to mixed-race marriage, they recognized that it was a right that shouldn’t be infringed upon.

          • Conservative American says:

            LOL! It’s okay, Tim. This is a big issue and it’s alright to take back a move if you feel that it isn’t a good one. Hey, we’re both human! We’re not going to be perfect!

            Well, Tim, you are postulating a God-given right. I don’t think that you will have much luck going with that one but you can give it a shot if you wish. ;-)

            • I appreciate your good attitude and apologize if I went over the line at any time. I’m having fun with this discussion. As for the postulating, you’re probably right. :D

              • Conservative American says:

                You’re fine, Tim. You have a good attitude too which does make it fun. We’re discussing ideas and concepts instead of seeing who can yell the loudest, LOL! :-)

  16. Okay, now I like where the conversation is going.

    CA said: “I think that there is a much bigger question to be addressed here, Tim. Some see homosexual “marriage” as essential to homosexual “equality”, what ever that means. Is that really the case, Tim, or is that an idea that has been promoted but which has no real merit? How do you define LGBT “equality”, Tim?”

    The conservative argument on same-sex marriage works so well because it is defined as preserving an “institution,” something that has been a bedrock part of society since time immemorial. Liberals don’t like to use this sort of rhetoric, since “changing” or “reforming” any institution can be a radical proposition. I think liberals and many activists have forgotten something important: how Americans, deep down and subconsciously, feel about marriage.

    Conservatives are right, marriage is important to our society, it is a deep and resonating strand of the very fabric of our humanity. The problem pro-same-sex marriage proponents have is not putting their side of the argument into that context and use appropriate rhetorical themes. Marriage equality is essential because of how people think of marriage and the relationships that lead to such a commitment.

    We grow up watching movies, observing our parents and the people around us, in a culture saturated by a media that focuses on family and romance and relationships. Marriage symbolizes something very important, a bond that is recognized by the community as the norm for a committed couple and their eventual family. As long as something so pervasive and normal is a bedrock of our society, those that are excluded will suffer. Gay kids grow up thinking their feelings are not normal and their relationships cannot be accepted by wider society. Individuals and couples just yearn for that recognition from society that they are normal people with families that deserve the same legal protections as any other normal family.

    Equality for gays and lesbians means they get the same rights, benefits, and privileges granted to everyone else. That is all our laws can guarantee, equality of application and access. As laws change and same-sex headed families become more numerous the general recognition and tolerance from society will follow. It’s an organic process, one that can’t be legislated or decided in court. But it starts with our laws.

    • Conservative American says:

      Very simply, Tim, homosexuals and heterosexuals have not been, are not now and never will be “equal” regarding marriage. It is a biological impossibility that cannot be refuted. So why spend your time trying to legislate “equality” where nature has dictated that there can never be “equality”?

      Neither two men nor two women have the biolgical capability, alone, of producing children. The union of one man and one woman can produce children. That is an immutable fact. Nothing that homosexuals say or do can ever change that. That is inequality and it is inherent inequality. It cannot be changed by man.

      • I don’t accept that premise. Ability to procreate has no bearing, in my mind, on the equality of legal marriage. Nature, inherently, has no sense of equality.

        • I would also add that I think marriage (for couples that choose to have children) is more about raising babies than just making babies.

          • Conservative American says:

            It’s about a married man and woman creating and raising their biological children. Nothing very complicated about that.

            • I think that’s a rather shallow and simplistic view of marriage. I’m sure plenty of married couples think differently about their relationships, it’s not always just about the kids.

              • Conservative American says:

                You can think whatever you want about it, Tim, but that’s been the norm since long before you were born.

                Tim wrote: “I’m sure plenty of married couples think differently about their relationships, it’s not always just about the kids.”

                So what? Are you giving me one of those classic liberal “not all” arguments? It doesn’t have to “always” be about just the kids. That’s the norm.

                So what if plenty of married couples think differently about their relationships? The norm and the gold standard is about a husband, a wife and their biological children. I’m sure that seems strange when viewed from your perch on the fringe of society.

              • Who says that’s the norm? Who or what is setting this “gold standard?”

                By your logic any marriage that doesn’t produce children doesn’t meet the norm or the gold standard. What does that make their marriage? I don’t think that childless marriages or marriages in which children cannot be naturally conceived are not normal. I don’t think they violate any gold standard. Families and couples are as diverse as the people that compose them.

                Again, this view of marriage is very subjective and built on personal worldviews, not facts, and certainly not the law.

              • “The norm and the gold standard is about a husband, a wife and their biological children.”

                I want to address this statement, further. Reason being is that I am an adoptive child. My parents couldn’t conceive a child.

                Why does my family fail to meet the gold standard? What makes my family less than normal? Why are my parents acceptable candidates for marriage but same-sex couples are not?

                I have a feeling you don’t even believe in this so-called gold standard.

              • Conservative American says:

                Tim wrote: “Who says that’s the norm? Who or what is setting this “gold standard?”

                Thousands of years of history say that’s the norm and the gold standard.

                Tim wrote: “By your logic any marriage that doesn’t produce children doesn’t meet the norm or the gold standard.”

                Hey, you got it!

                Tim wrote: “What does that make their marriage?”

                Less than it would have been had they procreated and raised their biological children.

                Tim wrote: “I don’t think that childless marriages or marriages in which children cannot be naturally conceived are not normal.”

                Of course not because you are not normal, LOL!

                Tim wrote: “Families and couples are as diverse as the people that compose them.”

                And what about people who are psychotic? Things are different for them but that doesn’t make their situation normal or healthy, does it.

                Tim wrote: “Again, this view of marriage is very subjective and built on personal worldviews, not facts, and certainly not the law.”

                The law? There is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage. That is the law.

                Tim wrote: “Why does my family fail to meet the gold standard?”

                Because the ideal is to procreate and to raise your biological children. If a married couple can’t do that, then adoption is a good second choice. Adoption is also good as regards adding additional children to your biological family.

                Tim wrote: “What makes my family less than normal?”

                They had to go to extraordinary, non-biological means to create a family. That’s not normal.

                Tim wrote: “Why are my parents acceptable candidates for marriage but same-sex couples are not?”

                Because marriage is exclusively the union of one man and one woman.

                Because the basis of marriage is procreating and raising biological children.

                Because homosexuality is abnormal, sexually deviant behavior and should not be granted the “seal of approval” of the insitution of marriage.

                Hey, knock yourself out. Believe what you choose to believe.

              • I don’t take solace in the fact that this conversation has exposed you for the condescending jerk I hoping you weren’t, CA. My parents marriage is “less than?”

                What makes you so holy and high and mighty to make that judgment? That’s all this conversation has been about: JUDGMENT. Of something you understand little to nothing about, of people and families you do not know.

                I doubt you have the cajones to say that to them or any other married man and woman who couldn’t or chose not to have kids. You are a glaring hypocrite, sir.

                You believe in exceptions to your “gold standard,” you’ve admitted as much. Yet it doesn’t make you step back and think whether or not you’re being obtuse.

                But I know I can’t reach you, you’ve already made up your mind. I’m not normal. I thought I came into this thread as someone who could have an honest conversation about our laws and culture. But no, the courtesy I extended to you was not denied to me. Notice how I have up until now not called you a homophobe, a hypocrite, or a jerk with a smug sense of superiority. I didn’t think that of you before or during our conversation.

        • Conservative American says:

          Of course the ability to procreate has bearing, LOL! What, you think that the point is to simply pleasure ourselves sexually? If that is the case then why are those “pleasure” organs reproductive organs? We could have been given an exquisitely sensitive pleasure organ that had nothing at all to do with reproduction. It could have been placed under an armpit where it would be well covered except when we wanted it to be stimulated. That, however, is not the case. Sexual intercourse clearly has a purpose other than pleasure.

          Of course nature has a sense of “equality”! If it did not, we wouldn’t have men and women. We would have all men or all women. The fact that there are two sexes, with only the physical union of opposite sexes resulting in the continuation of the species, clearly demonstates that sense of equality. Man and man or woman and woman cannot reproduce alone. The union of a man and a woman can result in procreation. The two are not equal by any objective measure.

          • Sexual reproduction is one of the best and easiest ways to increase genetic diversity in any population, and to “weed out” defective genes since most species that reproduce sexually can be very picky in a mate. That is why there are men and women, again, I don’t think the human concept of equality has anything to do with this.

            Sexual intercourse is pleasurable because it can increase the connection and emotional bond between the two engaged. This is evolutionary advantageous because closer couples can better raise offspring. I would in no way try to disconnect sexual pleasure with procreation.

            Humans, however, have made a distinction between sexual activity and procreation in many aspects of our lives. Sexuality is a part of our culture, not just our biology. Orientation, straight or gay, is an aspect of both our biology and how we identify ourselves in our culture. I don’t think procreation is a necessary prerequisite for legal marriage. Society recognizes plenty of couples as married regardless of whether or not they have kids or plan to have kids.

            • Conservative American says:

              Those are interesting ideas, Tim, but perhaps a bit far ranging. ;-)

              Procreation is the basis of marriage. The idea is that a man and a woman bring children into the world and then raise those biological children. Other than that, what is the overriding purpose of marriage? In what lies it’s root?

              As regards “equality” as a form of acceptance, no one is accepted by everyone and every group. The more we are concerned with what others think of us, the less peace we will have. Why? Because we are powerless to control what others think of us so we will end up in a continual snit which we can’t resolve. Homosexual “marriage” won’t make anyone accept homosexuals who previously has not. Universal homosexual “marriage” would be a Pyrrhic victory in that regard.

              When we look at the destructive impact of both homosexual “marriage” and the methods being used to attempt to achieve it, those negative effects are both real and numerous. The entire adventure is a huge net negative for America.

              Those who advocate for homosexual “marriage” invariably focus on every deviation from the norm and from the ideal. The ideal and the norm is one man and one woman who procreate and raise their biological children. The fact that there are deviations from that don’t negate the standard. Simply because many college students earn a grade of “B” or “C” doesn’t mean that a grade of “A” should be dropped as the gold standard.

              • Procreation may be the historical basis for the institution of marriage, but it is not the reason many committed couples decide to get married. Do you think a man and a woman who are married but don’t have kids are not really married? I doubt you would think that and that creates a double-standard.

                Everything else you said, I believe, is nothing but assigning subjective values that are irrelevant when we are talking about the law. I can’t agree with what you said because your subjective views have little bearing on my thoughts on same-sex marriage.

                You say one man and one woman who procreate is the ideal and the norm. That’s subjective and completely based in opinion. My opinion is that procreation has little bearing on the legal institution of marriage and the natural barriers that exist to procreation shouldn’t be used as a barrier for legal equality.

                I would hope that the overriding purpose of marriage, above other things including procreation, is that two people commit to each other and themselves that they have found a partner they’d like to share their life with. If a marry a woman and she can’t naturally have kids, I’m not going to abandon that commitment. Why? Procreation has nothing to do with whether or not I want to spend the rest of my life with someone.

              • Conservative American says:

                Tim wrtoe: “Procreation may be the historical basis for the institution of marriage, but it is not the reason many committed couples decide to get married.”

                Really? And where did you come by this absolute truth, LOL!

                Tim wrote: “Do you think a man and a woman who are married but don’t have kids are not really married? I doubt you would think that and that creates a double-standard.”

                Of course they are married but the primary purpose of marriage is to procreate, make a family and raise your bilogical children. Don’t give me that “exception” crap, Tim. We’re not looking at the exceptions to define the norm.

                No, that doesn’t create a “double standard”. The “standard” has been defined by thousands of years of men and women marrying, proceating and rasing their biological children.

                Tim wrote: “You say one man and one woman who procreate is the ideal and the norm. That’s subjective and completely based in opinion.”

                No it’s not. It’s based upon thousands of years of history of marriage between men and women.

                Tim wrote: “My opinion is that procreation has little bearing on the legal institution of marriage and the natural barriers that exist to procreation shouldn’t be used as a barrier for legal equality.”

                That’s because you’re not normal.

                “Legal equality”? Equal to what? Heterosexual and homosexuals are not and never will be equal. Two men or two women can never, alone, procreate. A man and a woman can. There’s an inherent inequality which has been predetermined by nature.

                Tim wrote: “I would hope that the overriding purpose of marriage, above other things including procreation, is that two people commit to each other and themselves that they have found a partner they’d like to share their life with.”

                No, the PURPOSE of marriage is to procreate and raise a family of bilogical children. Sure, you find someone compatible and commit. The two are not mutually exclusive.

                Tim wrote: “If a marry a woman and she can’t naturally have kids, I’m not going to abandon that commitment.”

                Really? How do you know that? That’s a hypothetical.

                Tim wrote: “Procreation has nothing to do with whether or not I want to spend the rest of my life with someone.”

                And since procreation and raising biological children is the principle purpose of marriage, you have no need to be married.

  17. Tim says:
    December 3, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    Gem upon gem of comedic brilliance. Wanumba delivers.
    ::::::::::::::::::::::::

    You think murder by witches is funny?

  18. I think it’s funny that you think American Wiccans can be compared with ritualistic murder in Africa.

    • Tim says:

      December 3, 2011 at 5:07 pm
      I think it’s funny that you think American Wiccans can be compared with ritualistic murder in Africa.
      :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

      Then you don’t know what “witchcraft” is and what they worship. Am I the first person you’ve “bumped” into who’s told you the truth about it?

      • I knew one person who called themselves Wiccan. I can assure you, she wasn’t going to sacrifice anyone. She’s a Pilates instructor for pete’s sake!

        • Don’t worry, she’ll either quit the cult or get weirder and weirder on you. They keep the harmless seeming ones up front to disarm people. The hard-core will even use the gullible newbies as sacrifices. They ALWAYS work on “levels” of achievement, initiating followers to pull them into darker and darker stuff.

          The police departments are very aware of witchcraft being practiced in the USA. They get to find the bodies and rescue abused children.

  19. Conservative American says:

    Tim:

    You realize, of course, that what you and I are engaging in here is the classic liberal/conservative debate over role of SCOTUS. Conservatives support a “strict” interpretation of The Constitution and liberals support, for lack of a better word, a very “flexible” interpretation of The Constitution. Conservatives accuse liberal justices of abandoning The Constitution and legislating from the bench while liberal justices accuse conservative justices of being insufficiently flexible and adaptive in their interpretations.

    There can be no resolution to this debate because there are two opposing and mutually exclusive points of view. In practical terms, it comes down to which side has the strongest majority on the court at any given time on a particular issue. There is often a “swing” vote and that would be Associate Justice Kennedy right now.

    • Indeed, a debate that will last the ages and both sides are legitimate. The real question is about which side is better for the country. I disagree with your assessment that the gay rights movement has subverted democracy with the tactics and strategies used in order to legalize same-sex marriage. They aren’t much different than the tactics used during the Women’s Suffrage or Civil Rights Movements. I wish the gay rights movement would, like those movements before it, do more to try to sway public opinion. Unfortunately, much of this fight has been in the courtrooms (not that I don’t think it doesn’t belong there) when it should have been in our media and at the dinner table like the movements before it.

      Protection from the tyranny of the majority is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Constitution, you are correct. As evidenced by the writings of some of our Founding Fathers, like Madison, the concept of protecting minority rights is a part of our Constitution, if only implied. This is one reason why we have separation of powers, checks and balances, and an independent judiciary that is meant to interpret laws. Historians and legal scholars acknowledge that much and it’s been an important part of American jurisprudence ever since.

      Perhaps that’s another difference between the two sides, conservatives only look at the face-value of the Constitution, while liberals are more likely to see certain themes not explicitly stated. I think the courts have historically sided with the liberal argument, since they have recognized a Constitutional right-to-privacy (also not explicitly stated in the Constitution) and a broad application of the Commerce Clause. This is why I think there is a historical basis for the the constitutionality of same-sex marriages.

      • Conservative American says:

        Tim wrote: ” I disagree with your assessment that the gay rights movement has subverted democracy with the tactics and strategies used in order to legalize same-sex marriage.”

        Really?

        There are actually two evils. One is homosexual “marriage” per se and the other is the methods being used by homosexual activists in attempting to bring about homosexual “marriage”. The latter, in and of itself, is destructive or our democratic processes. Let’s shine the spotlight on the methods being used by homosexual “marriage” advocates because that is what they least want people to examine.

        While homosexual “marriage” activists have repeatedly claimed that they have majority support for homosexual “marriage”, they do everything in their power to avoid a popular vote. Voting is fundamental to self-determination and we fought the American Revolutionary War principally to attain the right to self-determination. Homosexual “marriage” advocates would deny us that right.

        Homosexual “marriage” advocates claim that homosexual “marriage” is a right under The Constitution and, as such, should not be voted on. The reality is that unless and until The United States Supreme Court determines that homosexual “marriage” is a constitutional right, it is not. Here we see homosexual “marriage” activists seeking to undermine the rule of law of The Constitution.

        Homosexual “marriage” advocates seek to use the courts and our legal system to promote homosexual “marriage”, as they have done with seeking to overturn Proposition 8 in California. At the same time, they seek to deny that right to their opponents.

        When Obama directed the DOJ to cease defending portions of DOMA, the U. S. House of Representatives sought to take up the defense of that law. The Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual advocacy group, wrote letters to 200 of the nations top law firms urging them to not agree to defend DOMA on behalf of the U. S. House of Representatives. Those promoting homosexual “marriage” sought to deny even the duly elected U. S. House of Representatives the ability to secure a competent legal team to defend DOMA. That is an attempt to undermine our legal system and it is anti-American.

        In Iowa, Michael Gronstal, the top Democrat in the Iowa Senate, has vowed to make certain that the Iowa legislature doesn’t refer a proposed constitutional amendment to voters that would ban gay marriage. This, despite bipartisan support for such action. Gronstal seeks to prevent the people of Iowa from exercising their legal right to amend the Iowa Constitution. He seeks to disempower voters and to deny them their right to self-determination. Why? “I’m not going to write discrimination into the Constitution”, stated Gronstal. Gronstal has set himself above the people, establishing himself as the one person who determines what constitutes “discrimination” and what does not. That is anti-American and undermines our rights and liberties.

        There are countless examples of how homosexual “marriage” advocates are following an “the ends justifies the means” approach, trampling on our democratic processes to get what they want. Klute, one of the liberal posters here at SA, said, regarding homosexual “marriage”: “And whether we do it by public vote, judicial fiat, legislative vote, or presidential order – doesn’t matter.” There it is, right from the horse’s mouth! The will of the majority of the people is irrelevant to homosexual “marriage” advocates. That is anti-American.

      • Conservative American says:

        And there’s this:

        In light of new gay law, agency ends foster care
        Baptist Press
        Nov 15, 2011 Sign-Up SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (BP) — In a case with huge religious liberty implications, Catholic Charities in Illinois has chosen to drop its lawsuit against the state of Illinois and to end its adoption and foster care programs in light of a new gay civil unions law.

        Catholic Charities affiliates in the diocese of Springfield, Joliet and Belleville said Nov. 14 they were dropping the suit, three months after a judge ruled against them. The controversy stems from a civil unions law that went into effect in June and a demand by the Illinois Department of Children & Family Services that all agencies that have contracts with the state must be willing to place children in same-sex homes.

        Saying they would not place children in gay homes, Catholic Charities sued the state, arguing they were exempt from the law, which ironically is called the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act. In August a judge sided with the state, ruling that it didn’t matter what the language of the law said because the state was not required to have a contract with Catholic Charities anyway. In essence, he ruled, the state could have ended the contract even before the law passed.

        Still, there was no hiding the fact that the civil unions law led to the confrontation. The dispute involved only adoptions and foster care contracts that involved state money.

        Following the judge’s ruling, the state of Illinois began moving the approximately 2,000 children under Catholic Charities’ care to other agencies.

        Attorneys who support Catholic Charities say it’s another example of a same-sex law trumping religious liberty.

        “The Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act only passed after specific assurances that the law would not impact the work of religious social service agencies,” Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society said in a statement. “Specific protections for these agencies were written into the law, but unfortunately, Illinois officials refused to abide by those protections.”

        Other states should pay attention, Breen added.

        “This stands as a stark lesson to the rest of the nation that legislators promising ‘religious protection’ in same-sex marriage and civil union laws may not be able to deliver on those promises,” Breen said.

        The civil unions law grants same-sex couples all the state legal benefits of marriage.

        “The decision not to pursue further appeals was reached with great reluctance, but was necessitated by the fact that the state of Illinois has made it financially impossible for our agencies to continue to provide these services,” the bishops of the three diocese said in a statement. “Since we now need to close offices and lay off employees, further appeals would be moot.”

        The diocese of Peoria withdrew from the suit in October.

      • Conservative American says:

        Want more examples? Just say the word. I haven’t even begun to scratch the surface.

        • True Conservative says:

          I’d like just one example.

          No one said the Church had to take taxpayer money. If it takes money for a SPECIFIC program, then it has to use that money in a manner that does not discriminate. PERIOD.

          We true conservatives fought against your like when we defeated the Dixicrats in the South, when we freed the slaves and when we fought against the tyranny imposed by the USSR during the cold war.

          We will not let you drag us back.

          So, come on, find one case where a Church was forced to marry a single homosexual couple. Find one case where any legitimate Church was forced to alter its religious beliefs or practices because of gay marriage or civil unions.

          Tax-payer funded daycare doesn’t cut it.

          • Conservative American says:

            TC wrote: “I’d like just one example.”

            Hey, no problem, TC!

            While homosexual “marriage” activists have repeatedly claimed that they have majority support for homosexual “marriage”, they do everything in their power to avoid a popular vote. Voting is fundamental to self-determination and we fought the American Revolutionary War principally to attain the right to self-determination. Homosexual “marriage” advocates would deny us that right.

            Homosexual “marriage” advocates claim that homosexual “marriage” is a right under The Constitution and, as such, should not be voted on. The reality is that unless and until The United States Supreme Court determines that homosexual “marriage” is a constitutional right, it is not. Here we see homosexual “marriage” activists seeking to undermine the rule of law of The Constitution.

            Homosexual “marriage” advocates seek to use the courts and our legal system to promote homosexual “marriage”, as they have done with seeking to overturn Proposition 8 in California. At the same time, they seek to deny that right to their opponents.

            When Obama directed the DOJ to cease defending portions of DOMA, the U. S. House of Representatives sought to take up the defense of that law. The Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual advocacy group, wrote letters to 200 of the nations top law firms urging them to not agree to defend DOMA on behalf of the U. S. House of Representatives. Those promoting homosexual “marriage” sought to deny even the duly elected U. S. House of Representatives the ability to secure a competent legal team to defend DOMA. That is an attempt to undermine our legal system and it is anti-American.

            In Iowa, Michael Gronstal, the top Democrat in the Iowa Senate, has vowed to make certain that the Iowa legislature doesn’t refer a proposed constitutional amendment to voters that would ban gay marriage. This, despite bipartisan support for such action. Gronstal seeks to prevent the people of Iowa from exercising their legal right to amend the Iowa Constitution. He seeks to disempower voters and to deny them their right to self-determination. Why? “I’m not going to write discrimination into the Constitution”, stated Gronstal. Gronstal has set himself above the people, establishing himself as the one person who determines what constitutes “discrimination” and what does not. That is anti-American and undermines our rights and liberties.

            There are countless examples of how homosexual “marriage” advocates are following an “the ends justifies the means” approach, trampling on our democratic processes to get what they want. Klute, one of the liberal posters here at SA, said, regarding homosexual “marriage”: “And whether we do it by public vote, judicial fiat, legislative vote, or presidential order – doesn’t matter.” There it is, right from the horse’s mouth! The will of the majority of the people is irrelevant to homosexual “marriage” advocates. That is anti-American.

            TC wrote: “No one said the Church had to take taxpayer money. If it takes money for a SPECIFIC program, then it has to use that money in a manner that does not discriminate. PERIOD.”

            It’s not “discrimination”, it’s religious freedom. Furthermore, that wasn’t the result of a vote OR legislation. It was a “demand” by a department of the state government. You really like getting around democratic processes, don’t you. It’s the only way you can get any of what you want, LOL!

            TC wrote: “We true conservatives fought against your like when we defeated the Dixicrats in the South, when we freed the slaves and when we fought against the tyranny imposed by the USSR during the cold war.”

            You are not a “true conservative”, LOL! You are an radical, ultra left Commie and YOU never fought for anything. You have only read about fighting for things. You are a sidelines spectator who is all mouth and no action, LOL!

            TC wrote: “So, come on, find one case where a Church was forced to marry a single homosexual couple. Find one case where any legitimate Church was forced to alter its religious beliefs or practices because of gay marriage or civil unions.”

            Typical Commie attempt to raise a false issue. Religious freedom has to do with being able to LIVE in accordance with one’s religious beliefs. To violate freedom of religion does not require that a church be forced to marry a homosexual couple or that it be forced to alter it’s religious beliefs or practices because of gay marriage or civil unions. That is ignorantly concrete. Religious freedom is violated when people can’t LIVE according to their religious beliefs.

            TC wrote: “We will not let you drag us back.”

            We will not let you Commies destroy America. You underestimate the American people. You aren’t the first to do that and you won’t be the last. Many have tried. All have failed. So will you.

            Now define “marriage” for us, TC.

  20. Another Mesa Voter says:

    A friend of my daughter, still in high school, killed himself. He was gay. She knew him since grade school. He didn’t do it because he was bullied in school, in fact, he was very well liked at school. His burden was that his parents didn’t accept him. I always wondered if his parents didn’t accept this part of his life because of their own closed minded views or if they were worried about the closed minded views of others. Was his sexuality an embarassment? I guess regardless of the reasons, they lost a son over it.

    “Whether or not a gay gene, a set of gay genes, or some other biological mechanism is ever found, one thing is clear: The environment a child grows up in has nothing to do with what makes most gay men gay. Two of the most convincing studies have proved conclusively that sexual orientation in men has a genetic cause.”

    http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay

    I know, in our country, it takes a long time for people to become educated when they have deep seated discrimination.

    Since children came up in the posts, you’ll love this!

    • Conservative American says:

      Let’s remove the varnish and get to what it is you are seeking to promote.

      AMV wrote: “The environment a child grows up in has nothing to do with what makes most gay men gay.” Not only has that not been proven, it can never be proven. Why not?

      Sexual preference does not manifest at birth. By the time that sexual preference DOES manifest, the child has been exposed to countless environmental influences. So there is no way to rule out the effect of environmental influences to which the child has been exposed from birth until the manifestation of sexual preference as the cause of same sex preference.

      AMV wrote: “Two of the most convincing studies have proved conclusively that sexual orientation in men has a genetic cause.” Again, something which can never be proven for the same reasons cited above. The variable of environmental factors can never be ruled out as a cause.

      AMV wrote: “I know, in our country, it takes a long time for people to become educated when they have deep seated discrimination.”

      ROFL! Now THAT is pure left wing, liberal propaganda at it’s worst! Let’s tear that apart, shall we?

      You ever-so-conveniently ASSUME that people need “education” AND that they have deep seated discrimintation. Sorry, that is NOT a given, LOL! Let’s turn it around!

      It takes a long time for people to overcome Pinko propaganda and realize that recognizing the differences between homosexual people and heterosexual people does not constitute discrinination.

      Nice try, AMV, but the hearts and flowers, the unprovable contentions and the unfounded assumptions reveal you to be nothing more than a run of the mill, manipulative, left wing propagandist.

      Have a nice day, AMV! :-)

      • Another Mesa Voter says:

        You didn’t comment on the video. I’d really love to hear your comment after seeing the video.
        I actually didn’t write “Two of the most convincing studies… I provided a link to discover magazine.

        • Conservative American says:

          You have callously exploited the tragic death of a young person to promote your homosexual activist agenda. That is repugnant and reprehensible beyond measure. Crawl back into your sewer.

          • Another Mesa Voter says:

            I posted a comment and related a story on why I feel that treating certain people in our society as outcasts is wrong. It’s wrong because it has far reaching consequences. You may have phrased it as “Crawl back into your sewer” but even saying that is stating what’s already obvious. You are a person who claims the world as yours and all others who disagree or who are different can go beyond the invisible barrier that you’ve set up.
            I don’t have a homosexual activist agenda. Simply, I don’t believe any person should be treated as second class or as less than any other.
            Know that if anyone that you care about ever gets put into that situation, if it’s because they were born homosexual, born mentally or physically disabled, born of a different race… I’ll be there to tell them that they have as much a right to be in this this world as you do.

            • Conservative American says:

              You crassly exploited the tragic death of a young person to push your homosexual activst agenda. That is as despicable as it gets. The worst part is that you don’t even see what’s wrong with that!

              • Another Mesa Voter says:

              • Conservative American says:

                No thanks. I’m not interested in anything from someone who would stoop so low as to exploit the tragic death of a young person to promote the homosexual activist agenda.

              • Shorter Conservative American:

                I have no rebuttal to this, so I’m just going to attack you personally.

                Or:

                The tragic death of someone caused in part by homophobia could really make my homophobia look bad.

              • CA and I were having a nice conversation up until he had to infect the thread with a smug sense of superiority. I’m not normal, my family isn’t normal, two married people who are happy together and will spend their lives with each other are not normal!

                I’m done with this conversation and CA’s condescending, holier-than-thou, I know everything attitude.

              • Conservative American says:

                Klute:

                I just love it! The more you flap your gums, the more you reveal what you are. The tragic death of a young person is exploited to promote the homosexual activist agenda and you see not a thing wrong with that.

                Then again, you wrote, regading homosexual marriage: ““And whether we do it by public vote, judicial fiat, legislative vote, or presidential order – doesn’t matter.”

                Classic Communist “the end justifies the means” approach. You could care less about exploiting the death of a young person if you think it will advance your agenda. Nice!

              • Conservative American says:

                Tim:

                Good decision, Lad. If you can’t take the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen… and don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out!

                Have a nice day, Tim! :-)

              • “The tragic death of a young person is exploited to promote the homosexual activist agenda and you see not a thing wrong with that.”

                You want to swap the deaths of young homosexual Americans under the rug so it keeps a nice sanitary face on bigotry, because if people see what homophobia actually is and what is causes, they won’t see GLBT rights as an abstract, they’ll know it as a necessity.

                After the young African-American was brutally lynched, Emmett Till’s mother refused to have a closed casket funeral for her son. She wanted the world to see what the racists had done to her son. Her exact words: “There was just no way I could describe what was in that box. No way. And I just wanted the world to see.” She went on to tour the country telling the story of her son’s murder to get people to wake up to the hell that was the old traitor states.

                So, I guess you think Mamie Till Bradley really was exploting her son and a communist.

              • You are terrified of the real world examples of your abstract bigotry. I understand you fear, ConAm, but I do not empathize with it. You are pitiable.

              • Conservative American says:

                You fear the truth. I understand that it takes courage to face the truth, something which you appear to be sorely lacking, pathetic Pinko!

              • Another Mesa Voter says:

                I noticed that ConAm had a first reaction to what I wrote as ROFL concerning some of it and some of it he didn’t say anything about until he could come up with a way to attack me personally on it.

                I didn’t exploit him, in fact, I could have pointed you to remarks on the internet concerning the situation by his friends but wanted the family to have it’s privacy.

                Thank you Wannube for bringing up the point that in a teenager’s mind it may have been his way of “getting even” with his parents, that was valid and no one will ever know all of what was going through his mind.

                Because of his death I learned about http://www.itgetsbetter.org/
                These people aren’t being exploited either. They are standing up and trying to help others against the bully’s of this world. One of the kids was Jamey and you can hear him and read about him here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Pb1CaGMdWk&feature=player_embedded

                And they’re not just in high school are they ConAm? I remember you chasing True Conservative around and posting remarks after everything he said.

                Glad there are people like you out there The Klute. There were some really well thought out and intelligent posts here but I’m done. As with Tim, let me say it for you ConAm – I won’t let the door hit me on the way out.

              • You can call me a coward all you want, ConAm. I’m not the one freaked out by two dudes kissing.

              • Conservative American says:

                AMV:

                The fact remains that you exploited the tragic death of a young person to promote the homosexual activist agenda. That is repugnant and reprehensible. The worst part is that you don’t see a thing wrong with what you did.

              • Conservative American says:

                Klute:

                I could care less if two men kiss. That’s their business.

                The issue is marriage. That’s my business.

              • CA, the more you write, the less you are. Your abject hatred of homosexuals while you hide behind the bible says so much about how little of a person you are.

                I’m sure that a Psychologist could fill volumes of research on you.

                Projection: you are soaking in it.

                See a Doctor, save what is left of you.

                You hurt conservatism.

              • Conservative American says:

                ROFL!!!!!!!! :-)

                You are such a dolt, Lampoon, that you crack me up, LOL!

                Here, let me give you a dose of your own particular brand of idiocy.

                If you had a thought, it would die of loneliness. The space between your ears is filled only with a single neuron synapsed by a spirochete.

                Your hatred of normal people stems from your resentment of being cognitively impaired. The tragic thing is that your deficiency cannot be treated.

                You are a radical, ultra left Pinko making an exceedingly poor attempt to pass yourself off as a conservative. You hurt the Communist agenda you are trying to promote by doing such a piss poor job at attempting to deceive. Go back to Pinko training camp for remedial tutoring.

      • “Again, something which can never be proven for the same reasons cited above. The variable of environmental factors can never be ruled out as a cause.”

        No, not completely, that would be dishonest science. What the science does, however, demonstrate is more evidence for a biological, rather than a psychological, basis for sexual orientation.

        • Conservative American says:

          No it doesn’t. The studies have no validity because there are literally an infinite number of environmental variables which were not controlled and which can never be controlled. No conclusion can possibly be reached under those circumstances which is in any way whatsoever reliable.

          • I forgot, for conservatives the rules of science are whatever they want them to be…

            • Conservative American says:

              Really?

              It is a mandatory standard for research papers that all uncontrolled variables which could affect the reliablitiy or validity of the conclusion be explicitly stated in the paper. Your ignorance of that fact doesn’t change it.

              For liberals, there are no rules for science. The want us to accept any tripe they dish up as legitimate and valid research. It ain’t!

              Have a nice day, Tim! :-)

              • “The current consensus among scholars is that sexual orientation is not a choice.[5][6][7] No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,[8] with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.[9] Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the opposite sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. It is usually discussed in terms of heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality,[1] though asexuality is increasingly recognized as a fourth category.[10] These categories are aspects of the more nuanced nature of sexual identity. For example, people may use other labels or none at all.[1]”

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation

                That is what real scientists say, that’s what they have concluded. I never once tried to rule out environmental factors and neither have they. The EVIDENCE shows that sexual orientation is NOT CHOSEN!

                Just thought you should have the facts.

              • Conservative American says:

                In all fairness, Tim, I should disclose that I have studied research methods and been employed as part of a clinical research team conducting actual clinical research. If you want to continue along the lines of research, feel free but you will get your clock cleaned. There, now I’ve told you.

                First of all, what you have quoted above is not research. It is an article from Wikipedia.

                Secondly, not one of the footnotes refers to research.

                In the order in which they appear in the article:

                Footnote [5] refers to a “Clinical Report” and NOT a research study.

                Footnote [6] refers to a “Report” and NOT a research study.

                Footnote [7] refers to an article and NOT a research study.

                Footnote [8] refers to a “Report” and NOT a research study.

                Footnote [9] refers to a “Report” and NOT a research study.

                Footnote [1] refers to a “Questions and Anwers Pamphlet” and NOT a research study.

                Footnote [10] referst to an article and NOT to a research study.

                So what do we have here? We have an article from Wikipedia which cites subjective opinion which is not based upon a single, scientific research study. In other words, you don’t have squat.

                There is not one shred of scientific research evidence in what you have quoted. There is NO “evidence” provided in the article that sexual orientation is “not chosen”; zero, zip, zilch, nada.

                I hope you understand now that the next time you offer something up it had better be genuine research following the standard, mandatory research protocol or I’m going to rip it to shreds. What you have above is subjective opinion backed up by smoke and mirrors.

                Have a nice day, Tim! :-)

              • True Conservative says:

                Con AM – being part of a drug study for psychosis does not qualify you as a research professional.

                Your superficial review of the literature reveals you don’t know what you are talking about. (not to mention your history of scientific malapropisms!) The wikipedia entry cites reports, and those reports cite research and studies.

                Just because you lack the intellectual prowess to read past a footnote doesn’t mean others can’t.

                You’re still nothing but a clown, just that now you’re one that mocks the death of a young man. Cognitive dissonance is a cruel mistress, and you are deep into her clutches.

              • Conservative American says:

                TC wrote: “Con AM – being part of a drug study for psychosis does not qualify you as a research professional.”

                I never said that I was part of a drug study for psychosis. Quote me where I wrote that. You can’t because I never wrote that. Just another TC lie and distortion, LOL!

                Oh yes, but I AM a research professional, LOL!

                TC wrote: “Your superficial review of the literature reveals you don’t know what you are talking about. (not to mention your history of scientific malapropisms!) The wikipedia entry cites reports, and those reports cite research and studies.”

                There is not a single research study even cited in the Wiki article of subjective opinion you posted. Not one. Don’t try to toy with me on this, son, you’re way out of your league and I’ll clean your clock again and again.

                TC wrote: “Just because you lack the intellectual prowess to read past a footnote doesn’t mean others can’t.”

                ROFL!!!!! It is YOU who have the problem reading footnotes. Not one of those footnotes, not ONE of them, leads to a research study. If you had any training or experience at all in research that would be manifestly obvious to you.

                I really hate to say this, TC, but you have proven yourself to be a complete idiot. You don’t know squat about research and try to fake it. You can’t fake it with someone who has been trained in research and who was employed as part of a research team. Give it up, fool, LOL!

                And now you can define marriage for us.

  21. Conservative American says:

    The previously mentioned situation with Catholic adoption agencies in Illinois offers us another insight into the position of Democrats versus Republicans on issue of freedom of religion.

    A bill, SB2945, was introduced by an Illionis state senator, Republican Senator Kyle McCarter, to protect the religious freedom of faith based adoption services:

    “Amends the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act. Provides that a child welfare agency that is religiously based or owned by, operated by, or affiliated with a bona fide religious organization may decline an adoption or foster family home application, including any related licensure and placement, from a party to a civil union if acceptance of that application would constitute a violation of the organization’s sincerely held religious beliefs and, if an agency declines an application, it must provide the applicant with information on how to contact the Department of Children and Family Services to obtain information concerning other regional licensed child welfare agencies.”

    So, what is happening with SB2945? It’s being blocked by Democrats!

    “Introduced by Sen. Kyle McCarter (R-Highland), Senate Bill 2495 was filed on October 12, 2011 and referred to assignments. Sources in Senate President John Cullerton’s (D-Chicago) office indicate the bill is essentially dead on arrival and will not even enjoy committee assignment.

    “People need to understand the difference between politics and the legislative process,” explained TCRA policy director Lowell Jaffe. “This is merely partisan posturing. Our legislative team is working with our allies in Springfield focusing on fiscal issues that affect the LGBT community in this state, because that is what Illinoisans are really concerned about right now.”

    http://chicago.gopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/23158809/illinois-republican-senators-back-adoption-discrimination-bill

    So Democrats not only support homosexual “marriage”, they actively oppose any measures which will preserve freedom of religion in the face of civil unions and homosexual “marriage”. It’s the Democrat fast track for the destruction of America.

  22. Another Mesa Voter says:

    December 3, 2011 at 10:42 pm
    A friend of my daughter, still in high school, killed himself. He was gay. She knew him since grade school. He didn’t do it because he was bullied in school, in fact, he was very well liked at school. His burden was that his parents didn’t accept him
    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    Suicide is a a result of a spiritual crisis of perceived hopelessness and life without meaning and purpose, not whether one is “gay” or not.

  23. Wanumba the Shrink.

  24. Please keep it up guys. It is not only soo entertaining but also educational. Your posts accentuate the evil that religion is and the stupidity of those who take their clues and guidance from it; CAP included.

    • Conservative American says:

      Well thank you, Horst, for making crystal clear that supporters of homosexual “marriage” think that religion is evil. That would certainly explain their attacks on freedom of religion. With a little luck, maybe you can stamp out all religion and all religious freedoms. ‘Ya think?

      • CA,
        I have no intention to stamp out “Freedom From Religion” I cherish and appreciate my right to freedom from religion. It permits me to think for myself, rather than to have to adhere to and believe in such Superstition, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Immaculate Conception, Heavenly Kingdom, Prayer, The Rapture just to mention a few of the nonsensical idiosyncrasies that are connected to religion.
        As to the core of this discussion, if there were indeed an almighty intelligent designer like God, who created men in his image, it must have been him who created Gays as well as Lesbians.
        If not, then he is either not almighty or he screwed up royally or there is no such thing as God.
        To sum things up, I have no problem with you believing any fairy tales you fancy. The problem is you and CAP and like minded sheep are still to some measurable degree insecure in the validity of their religious fantasies; and to overcome that, they insist that everyone else, the whole world belief like they do, so there would be no other opinion and that would be the only way for them to be right.
        And that is where I draw the line, I resend religious radicals to influence lawmakers to draw laws based on biblical nonsense and stupidity.

        • Conservative American says:

          Horst wrote: “As to the core of this discussion, if there were indeed an almighty intelligent designer like God, who created men in his image, it must have been him who created Gays as well as Lesbians.”

          Wrong. God created human beings who have chosen to engage in the practice of homosexuality just as baseball players chose to play baseball.

          Horst wrote: “To sum things up, I have no problem with you believing any fairy tales you fancy.”

          The problem is, Horst, that God isn’t a “fairy tale”. The question is, why do you not know that with certainty as I do? The answer is quite simple. I wanted to find out, for certain, one way or the other, if God exists. I made an intelligent effort and got the answer. You, on the other hand, don’t know if God exists or not. You said, “…if there were indeed an almighty intelligent designer like God…”. So, clearly you don’t know if God exists or not.

          What efforts have you made to find out for yourself if God is fact or fiction? What efforts have you made to find out, definitively, if the Bible is “nonsense” and “stupidity” or not? You aren’t telling me that you have made no effort at all to find out for yourself, are you? If so, your position would be based upon an unfounded and untested assumption that God does not exist and that the Bible is nonsense.

    • I always find it funny when someone gleefully points out eternal damnation as the end game. Its like Christian schadenfreude. If God doesn’t like gay people, why did he make so many?

      • Conservative American says:

        God didn’t make gay people. He made people. Some people choose to engage in homosexuality.

        • There is a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality, its not a choice.

          Being willfully ignorant like you on the other hand….

          • Conservative American says:

            No, there is no genetic predisposition towards homosexuality. It IS a choice. You are being willfully ignorant which is also a choice.

            • Keep living in your created reality. Its been found in animals, did they make a choice?

              The willful ignorance you spew daily is sad, you really are a sad and conflicted person.

              • Conservative American says:

                Keep living in your fantasy.

                Lampoon says: “Its been found in animals, did they make a choice?”

                So you would rather be an animal than a human being. There are differences, you know. Male lions often eat lion cubs. Want to eat babies, is that it?

  25. I remember the good ol’ days when the CAP was upfront about its anti-Mormon bigotry. After considerable outrage it was forced to take down its link to a bookstore that sold anti-Mormon literature. This happened conveniently when its chairman was about run for governor.

    • Conservative American says:

      Hagar wrote: “I remember the good ol’ days when the CAP was upfront about its anti-Mormon bigotry.”

      So CAP still practices bigotry but is simply not “upfront” about it. Interesting. I never knew that.

      Could you provide some quotes and links to CAP sources so I can see that bigotry for myself?

      Thanks a lot, Hagar.

  26. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    Another Mesa Voter says:

    December 4, 2011 at 1:45 pm
    I posted a comment and related a story on why I feel that treating certain people in our society as outcasts is wrong.
    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    Look. What do you want someone like me to do with your story about a guy you actually don’t know who committed suicide because his parents rejected him?

    My parents have 4 divorces and 5 marriages between them, but the one thing that united them was to attack me for dealing with the disarray and anger they created in the family by turning to God for help later in my adult years. It was ugly and they encouraged my siblings to go after me. So henious was this transgression in their eyes that when they failed to intimidate me, they tried to wreck my children in order to punish me. How low is that? To try to ruin your own grandchildren and nieces and nephews because the parents can’t stand a Christian in the family? I never even mentioned it!! I minded my own business! We’re talking about once every two years get-togethers like Thanksgiving – couldn’t maintain civility for a few HOURS … during which an action occured that I could have called the cops and successfully pressed charges against them … THAT’s how nasty it was, they actually broke the law in their zeal to teach me a lesson thru my kids.

    Lots of people get rejected by parents for all sorts of reasons … some parents don’t need any reason at all. I have tried to break that cycle of parental fail by being the parent I believe kids should have. I’ve met Rwandan parents who have to live every day with the knowledge that they sent their kids to what they thought was safety, into killing fields where their kids were slaughtered; worked with people who literally were slaves, worked with people who are the sole survivors of famine, people who’d literally been beaten out of their homes and driven out of the country.

    So, there are worse things out there than being rejected by one’s parents. I personally, totally, KNOW that for a FACT, by hard experience, not by vicariously recounting someone else’s story.
    So, also I know for a fact that suicide is not the only option available, but it is the one that could punish the parents the most.

    This is one of those times that the negative stereotype of Conservatives or Christians being uncaring is so damaging to meaningful communication. Just because people don’t carry their wounds on their sleeves doesn’t mean they don’t have any and that they can’t possibly understand or have compassion for other people’s problems and trials. And if people have been through hardships and give a certain advice, maybe it’d be more thoughtful to consider why they maintain such advice .. maybe it’s deeper thinking than people assume … and have been coached to ignore.

  27. Conservative American says:

    People like Horst say that religion should have no influence on marriage.

    Homosexual “marriage” advocates don’t want to put it to a vote. They claim that it is a right and should not be voted on.

    The Constitution does not explicitly state that homosexual “marriage” is a right and SCOTUS has not ruled that it is a constitutional right under any existing clause.

    The question is, then, what is the basis for implementing homosexual “marriage”?

    It isn’t religion. It isn’t a vote of the people. It isn’t The Constitution. So, what is it?

  28. Conservative American says:
    December 5, 2011 at 3:00 am

    People like Horst say that religion should have no influence on marriage.
    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    Hindus believe one is married for seven lifetimes.

    People like Horst want to disingenuously make this a “Christian Issue,” when there’s a very big non-Christian world out there that isn’t going to buy into ANY of this, and won’t take passively to being crowded on it.

    It’s just SAFER whinging about Christian non-capitulation than demanding Hindu or Muslim aquiescence to gay marriage demands. Just because Hindus are vegetarians doesn’t mean they hold back when it comes to street rioting or violently defending any perceived insults to their faith.

    Just sayin’

  29. Wanumba,
    I do not care what you or C A or Hindus or Muslims believe. I grant you the right to believe whatever you want to believe.
    I do not care how you define God, or how and why you believe it exists.
    It is not that I don’t believe there is a God, I know there isn’t.
    Furthermore I do believe that none of you has a right to prevent a gay or lesbian person from getting married to another gay or lesbian person.
    Why? Because neither of you can establish that gay or lesbian marriage is a threat or a harm to you.
    If it were a harm, you must first have a sick mind.
    The Spanish Inquisition is long over. Don’t start another one.

    • That’s pretty hysterical to declare that ANYONE cares to indulge in an “inquisition” when the action being discussed is to NOT take action. Civil unions provide ALL legal demands of activist gays…ordained by the STATE, not any religious organization.

      The problem has been that activist gays are demanding that religious institutions perform marriages that are against religious tenets … and that activist gays want the STATE to punish religious believers if they don’t capitulate. We must differentiate “activitists” because this is not at all monolithic thought in the gay community regarding marriage. It’s a minority of a minority.

      That’s not a very nice thing to do to people, is it? Wouldn’t that be a punitive Inquisition by Atheists against religious believers, punishing them with fines and prison for adhering to their beliefs?

      And what’s with your assertion you don’t believe in any religions? Why then the demand that gay marriage have ANY religious stamp of approve on it? Why would you care?

    • Conservative American says:

      Horst wrote: “It is not that I don’t believe there is a God, I know there isn’t.”

      I going to ask you this question for the second time, Horst. What efforts have you made to find out if there is a God or if there is not a God? If you haven’t made any effort whatsoever to prove or disprove that God exists then you are operating under blind disbelief. I know, absolutely, that God does, in fact, exist.

      Horst wrote: “Furthermore I do believe that none of you has a right to prevent a gay or lesbian person from getting married to another gay or lesbian person.”

      You had better believe it because we do. There are only six states where homosexual marriage is legal.

      Horst wrote: “Because neither of you can establish that gay or lesbian marriage is a threat or a harm to you.”

      It’s not necessary that we establish that.

      It is illegal to marry a sibling. It is illegal to marry someone under the age set by law. It is illegal to be married to more than one person at the same time. We DO have the right to prohibit persons of the same sex from being legally married just as we have the right to set other limits on legal marriage.

      If you have any doubt about that, over 40 states prohibit homosexual “marriage” either by legislation or by defining marriage as between one man and one woman in their constitution. If there were a right to homosexual “marriage” under The U. S. Constituion, we would have homosexual “marriage” in all 50 states right now. We don’t.

  30. Conservative American says:

    Horst:

    Let’s follow your logic and see where it takes us, shall we?

    You wrote: “Furthermore I do believe that none of you has a right to prevent a gay or lesbian person from getting married to another gay or lesbian person. Why? Because neither of you can establish that gay or lesbian marriage is a threat or a harm to you.”

    Does one sibling marrying another sibling pose a threat or harm to you? If not, your reasoning says that it should be legal. Do you support the legalization of marriage between siblings, Horst?

    Does marrying somone eight years old pose a threat or harm to you? If not, your reasoning says that it should be legal to marry someone eight years old. Do you support the legalization of marriage with someone eight years old, Horst?

    Does being married to more than one person at the same time pose a threat or harm to you? If not, by your reasoning polygamy should be made legal. Do you support the legalization of polygamy, Horst?

    Does an adult having sex with minor pose a threat or harm to you? If not, your reasoning says that pedophilia should be legal. Do you support the legalization of pedophilia, Horst? If not, what is your basis for opposing it?

  31. Listen up Conservative American,
    The original Post started with:

    “***ever Let Our Guard Down
    Just a little over three years ago, 56% of Arizona voters decided to add these 20 simple words to our state Constitution:

    Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.

    While the marriage amendment victory was a critical step to protecting marriage in Arizona, we would be foolish to think our work is done to ensure marriage is never redefined. A recent poll from the liberal Public Policy Polling group claims a smaller margin of Arizona voters now support traditional marriage – 45% say same-sex “marriage” should be illegal, and 44% say it should be legal. Their poll also says that a majority of voters think that Arizona should establish marriage counterfeits like domestic partnerships.

    Of course, the poll did not ask whether marriage should be defined as only the union of one man and one woman. The questions were not exactly neutral, and the polling company typically works for those who want to redefine marriage. The obvious intent is to begin laying a foundation to ask Arizona voters to redefine marriage in the next ten years or so.

    The poll shows the “never give up” commitment of marriage opponents to eventually win on the marriage issue. These organizations are well funded and are well organized. Marriage opponents will be out registering voters and working hard to influence the 2012 elections. At CAP, our team will never let our guard down in our stand to see marriage stay the union of one man and one woman.”

    This was a clear BATTLE CRY to deprive Gays and Lesbians from the blessings of MARRIAGE.

    I kept quiet for a long time and let religious doctrine run rampant.

    Permit me to insert my disclaimer: “The Horst Kraus Family identifies themselves with secular humanists, who grant everyone the right to find their own spirituality on their own path without interference by others; and by mutual agreement without them interfering with the spiritual beliefs of their contemporaries.
    Spiritual beliefs includes by inference lifestyle of an individual whether or not genetically imposed or by random happenstance.
    C.A. You asked me if I had made an earnest effort to confirm the existence of God.
    No, I have not!
    I have also not made an earnest effort to confirm the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, the Aliens from Outer Space in Area 51, the Shooter from the “Grassy Knoll” in Dallas, and the Mystery of the Bermuda Triangle.
    As a disclaimer:
    I flew my plane once from a vacation in the Bahamas through the Bermuda Triangle and I found there was no gravitational pull and no mystery.
    That is how close I was going to get.
    To answer your question concisely, “I don’t waste my time looking for something that I know does not exist.
    There is no such a thing as God and I have no time looking for her, it or him.

    To answer your specific questions regarding incest and child pornography
    I strongly recent your leaping to hypothetical answers of your own to hypothetical questions of your own and attributing non-existing answers to me .
    You asked:
    “Does one sibling marrying another sibling pose a threat or harm to you? If not, your reasoning says that it should be legal. Do you support the legalization of marriage between siblings, Horst?

    So, very politely, I do not support marriage of biological siblings because science supports findings that inbreeding causes birth defects.

    You asked::
    “Does marrying someone eight years old pose a threat or harm to you? If not, your reasoning says that it should be legal to marry someone eight years old. Do you support the legalization of marriage with someone eight years old, Horst?”

    Likewise I do not support marriage of 8 year old brides or grooms simply because they can’t possibly evaluate the consequence of such a contract.

    You asked: ”
    Does being married to more than one person at the same time pose a threat or harm to you? If not, by your reasoning polygamy should be made legal. Do you support the legalization of polygamy, Horst?

    Answer: Here we go again, You are a SCHMUCK ! You are putting implications into my mouth that I did not say. It makes you a good Christian. Right on! Halleluiah ! Praise the Lord. You are a Schmuck!

    First off, different cultures in this world adhere to different standards. If I were a Sheik in Kuwait I might have a different opinion on multiple wife’s and it would be OK for that Cult.,

    For what it is worth and for your information, I met my wife in 7 th grade. (that was1944) we enjoyed an extensive romance period and married in 1953 and we are still married to day.
    END OF DISCUSSION. It does not make me a good Republican Conservative. Good Conservative Republicans are mostly recognized having kicked previous wife’s out while they recovered from severe medical trauma,(Gingrich et al)

    You asked:
    “Does an adult having sex with minor pose a threat or harm to you? If not, your reasoning says that pedophilia should be legal. Do you support the legalization of pedophilia, Horst? If not, what is your basis for opposing it?

    Look, take note, there are hundreds, maybe thousands patriotic American Men traveling to Indonesia to have sex with 14 year old girls.I can’t help that. It is a fact of live.
    I am not one of them! (you may check my travel itinerary)
    So, What the F*ck do you try to imply?

    In Conclusion Mister or Missis Conservative American, This is the last time I will engage you in discussion. You are a Nut Job par Excellence and I have better things to do to advance conservative principals, Praise The Lord, Halleluiah, Amen !

  32. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    Horst Kraus says:
    December 5, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    This was a clear BATTLE CRY to deprive Gays and Lesbians from the blessings of MARRIAGE.

    I kept quiet for a long time and let religious doctrine run rampant.

    Permit me to insert my disclaimer: “The Horst Kraus Family identifies themselves with secular humanists, who grant everyone the right to find their own spirituality on their own path without interference by others; and by mutual agreement without them interfering with the spiritual beliefs of their contemporaries.
    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    One. For someone non-religious as you claim, it’s a peculiar chose of words to employ “blessings of marriage.” “Blessings” are bestowed by GOD.

    Two: Secular humanism is a religion where man is the ultimate judge and model, personified in the STATE.

    Three: You violate your own stated tenet of “grant everyone the right to find their own spirituality without interference” by demanding though the full force of the STATE that religious people deny their religious spirituality by capitulating to activity that is expressly forbidden and contrary to the tenets of their faiths … that is “marrying gays.”

    A secular humanist should be perfectly satisfied with “civil union,” a STATE action, no other religion involved. But, nooo… the argument to to force churches,temples, synagogs, mosques and shrines to do this OR FACE LEGAL PUNISHMENT.

    So, indeed, it’s ALL about taking away the freedom of religion.

  33. In New York, people are more civilized. The economy and culture are a lot better, too.

    • I spent 4 years college in New York state, schlepping up and down the state thru NYC, on trains, planes, busses and taxis.
      I do not know what you are talking about.

      Niagra Falls looks as seedy as it did in 1965. Seen lots of other places improved. Not there.
      Cornell charges $50,000 a year. Pick a university and cry at the prices.
      A one room efficiency apartment in Manhattan was $3,000 a month.

      Down south, in the middle of a loan application, the Southern loan officer said, “We had your loan manager from New York on SPEAKERPHONE so EVERYONE in the OFFICE could hear how rude she was.”

      “Thank you very much,” I said, “I didn’t want people to think it was ME with all that attitude.”

      We had a modest, 3 bedroom house 30 minutes from Washington DC, in Virginia. Friends we knew had a VERY similar house, size, neighborhood and commute to NYC. The price and mortgage were almost identical.
      Our VA property taxes? $1,800 a year. THEIR NEW YORK property taxes : $9,000.

      The culture the needs to stop being so full of itself. Nothing more ridiculous in life to hear a New Yorker complain they can’t understand other people’s accents. Nauw Yoik? Seriously?

      … Oh, wait a minute … were you being sarc/?

    • Conservative American says:

      Richard Grayson:

      “Dec. 5 (Bloomberg) — New York Governor Andrew Cuomo wants to overhaul the state’s tax system, use public-private partnerships to fix infrastructure and legalize gambling as he faces a deficit of as much as $3.5 billion next fiscal year.”

      “The state’s deficit is only a symptom and as governor, I want to address the illness,” Cuomo wrote in an opinion article e-mailed to media outlets yesterday. “The essential problem we face is a struggling economy.”

      http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-05/cuomo-proposes-new-york-tax-overhaul-infrastructure-fund.html

      Gee, your man Cuomo says, “The essential problem we face is a struggling economy.”

      Not only that, but things are SO good in New York State that so many people have moved out of the state that they lost two seats in the U. S. House of Representatives as a result of the 2010 census!

      On top of that, they have homosexual “marriage” which proves that New York State isn’t civilized at all.

      So, move to New York, or is that where you do live.

  34. True Conservative says:

    Thank you, Wanumba and Con Am, for proving my core thesis – when conservatives allow the lunatic fringe to speak for us we lose.

    We lose the debate. We lose membership. We lose votes. WE LOSE ELECTIONS!

    We must universally cringe as Wanumba distorts, conflates and outright lies about the posts of others in his desperate search for feigned outrage. Those are not the traits of true conservatives. Real conservatives can meet argument on its merits and win by relying on conservative philosophy, not 21st century sophistry.

    Con Am demonstrates a similar disdain for core conservatives values as he wages his jihad on anyone not aligned to with his brand of conservativism – which arguably is not conservativism at all. Forget his bad grammar, his largely incoherent use of argument, his overuse of Internet acronyms, the real threat lays in his repeated effort to turn conservativism on its head, turning us away from our belief in limited government and towards his desire for the (R) party to become the new big brother, the new bedroom police, the new thought police where the government supplants our beliefs with its beliefs.

    Both are social conservatives – members of a vital sub-group of the (R) party, but not representing the majority, and certainly not the keepers of the keys to (R) inclusion. It is not in their membership as social conservatives we should take exception, it is in their petulant demand that if you are not, then you are not welcome.

    First, we have to acknowledge that social conservatives such as Wanumba and Con Am (and not the majority of Soc Con) represent “a form of authoritarianism … associated with the position that the federal government should have a greater role in the social and moral affairs of its citizens.” In contrast, true conservatives value “small-government” and “states-rights” We abhor “the notion that the federal government should bear the responsibility to overrule the states in order to preserve the stated value” of one group over another. Further, it must be noted that Social Conservatives are themselves a departure from tradition. They have only existed as a group since roughly the mid-1950′s. Furthermore, there is a reason that Value Voters represent a breakout group of the (R) party, they are not the heart of our party and they do not have the right to impose a litmus test upon us. Con Am protestations be damned.

    On the issue of gay marriage, in my personal life and in my faith I do hold that marriage is the union of one man to one woman. I must question however, whether that should be the role of my government to define. I would fight off any effort to force my religion to act (or not act) in accord with its articles of faith, so I must use the strictest of scrutiny when suggesting it do so to the faith of others.

    As the final prelude, it merits mention that most conservatives are fiscal conservatives, constitutional conservatives and foreign policy conservatives, and this is especially true of younger voters. A recent poll revealed that most young conservatives haven’t even really thought about the issue of same-sex marriage and generally where not opposed to it. Old man that I am, I’m in that category as well. As a true conservative, I like to stay out of the lives of others. Social Conservatives are a break-out group at the convention. They are not the majority. Technically, even the Tea Party rejected adopting social conservative issues into its agenda.

    So we turn to the gays.

    It’s not for me, but how can I deny there exist genuine life-long commitments between two same-sex citizens? Do children raised in same-sex marriages have problems – sure, some do. Same is true with heterosexual marriage children. Do we do away with both?

    So, some gay pervert stared down Wanumba’s child (an offense Wanumba did nothing to stop or avenge). Same thing happens with non-gay men, except they stare down little girls. And for the record, either gay or non-gay does that in my presence, I’m willing to get arrested if that is what it takes to immediately remedy that affront.

    Unlike child marriage and forced marriage where the reason for outlawing them is the harm they present to society, the only reason Con Am can give for outlawing same-sex marriage is that it somehow diminishes his marriage. Wanumba retreats to the lie that religions would be forced to perform same-sex marriage.

    That it – that is all they have. Some anecdotes, some lame as heck logic and a handful of lies. It doesn’t feel right for them, and it does feel right to me either, so they want to force others, by force of government largess, to adopt their views.

    Who am I, if I am a true conservative – a blend of constitutional, fiscal and foreign policy conservativism – to tell anyone what they have to do in their bedroom or in their commitments?

    And that brings us full-circle. With Wanumba and Con Am out there turning the (R) party away from being the party of small government and local rule, they are driving away voters who do embrace those core conservative values. Those voters must ask – as should you – where will these ideological miscreants draw the line? When they trot out tropes, memes and out-right lies, Wanumba and Con Am force voters to ask – as should you – is this the style of logic and reason that I want to get behind? If they are so poor in their thinking on this issue, can I trust them on any other?

    The only Litmus Test these two have successfully advocated is that when you think like them, you are NOT a true conservative.

    • Conservative American says:

      NOTICE: The above poster, “True Conservative”, is a same sex marriage liberal posing as a conservative. Be aware that what she writes is radical, left wing Pinko propaganda.

    • Conservative American says:

      Since you claim that you are a “true conservative”, and that we are NOT conservative, define “marriage” for us, TC. Here’s the definition of marriage from a REAL “true conservative”, Republican U. S. Senator Jim DeMint:

      “http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=FamilyValues

      Now, let’s hear your definition of marrige, TC, and see how it compares with that of a REAL “true conservative”, Republican U. S. Senator Jim DeMint.

      The rest of what you wrote is irrelevant trash. Let’s get down to the core issue regarding conservatism and who is conservative and who is not.

      Define “marriage”, TC.

      • True Conservative says:

        I already did.

        Too bad you can’t be bothered to read a post before you respond with your predictably vapid responses.

        Here is what I wrote: “On the issue of gay marriage, in my personal life and in my faith I do hold that marriage is the union of one man to one woman.”

      • True Conservative says:

        Con Am wrote: “The rest of what you wrote is irrelevant trash”

        Let me guess, is that coward-speak for “Con-Am not smart. Con-Am not able to reply.?”

        You’re a joke.

        • Conservative American says:

          NOTICE: The above poster, “True Conservative”, is a same sex marriage liberal posing as a Conservative.

        • Conservative American says:

          Sorry, I don’t see your definition of marriage, TC. Define “marriage” for us.

          Here, I’ll get you started:

          “Marriage is exclusively the union of….” Now, all you have to do is to complete the rest of the sentence. If you are, as you claim, a Conservative, that should be very easy for you. It didn’t seem hard for Repblican U. S. Senator Jim DeMint to do. You shouldn’t have any trouble with it either, since you are a “TRUE conservative”.

          So give us your definition of “marriage”, TC.

    • Conservative American says:

      Sorry, I messed up that link. Here is Senator DeMint’s statement and the link:

      “Family Values”

      “DeMint believes marriage is the cornerstone to building strong families and communities, and must be protected. For this reason, the senator has consistently supported an amendment to the United States Constitution declaring marriage shall only consist of a legal union between a man and a woman. Also, DeMint has consistently defended federal law pertaining to the sanctity of marriage, including his support for the Marriage Protection Act of 2004. He believes traditional marriage is an important foundation for creating healthy family formation so children will be in raised in the healthiest of environments, setting the stage for their future.”

      http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=FamilyValues

      Now since you claim that you are conservative and that I am not, let’s hear your definition of marriage, TC.

      • True Conservative says:

        I am not a social conservative. I believe in family values. I defend family values. I do not force my family values onto the families of others.

        My definition of marriage is not relevant to my being a true conservative, but I have already given it to you, you simply like to lie about me. Here it is again: “On the issue of gay marriage, in my personal life and in my faith I do hold that marriage is the union of one man to one woman.”

        The problem you have is that you are not a conservative. You’re part of the right, but you are so far to the right that you are wrong.

        Conservatives believe in limited government and local rule. We defend traditional values, but we also defend freedom. You do neither. You resist change not because you are trying to defend a value, but because you fear outsiders. If that were not true, then you would not so easily retreat to lies and distortions when stating your claim. You would make a principled argument based on conservative principles. You have not.

        You believe in a form of authoritarianism where the federal government should have a greater role in the social and moral affairs of its citizens. That is an anathema to true conservatives.

        I take my conservative bearing from my fiscal, constitutional and foreign policy philosophies.

        It merits repeating: all your litmus test does is reveal that you are not a true conservative.

        • Conservative American says:

          Support for traditional marriage and opposition to homosexual “marriage” is absolutely a litmus test for being a Conservative. The fact that you seek to deny that is proof that you are a same sex marriage liberal.

          If you are not a “social conservative” then you are NOT a Conservative, PERIOD!

          You can be “fiscally conservative” and still be a liberal. We are not talking about being fiscally conservative, we are talking about being A Conservative.

          Conservatives are BOTH fiscally conservatives AND socially conservative. That is what makes them Conservative.

          The idea that there are fiscal Conservatives and social Conservatives is an attempted redefinition of Conservatism by the radical liberal left just as the radical liberal left seeks to redefine marriage.

          Here’s a quote from Conservapedia which states, “We do not allow liberal bias to deceive and distort here.”

          “Specifically, conservatives seek or support:”

          “Traditional marriage, not same-sex marriage”

          http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative

          Each of the following senators was given a “Defenders of Liberty” honor by the American Conservative Union and given a “Perfect 2010 ACU Rating of 100″.

          Barrasso: “In the state Senate, in addition to receiving an ‘A’ rating from the NRA, I have voted for prayer in schools, against gay marriage and have sponsored legislation to protect the sanctity of life.”

          Brownback: “Giving public sanction to homosexual “marriage” would violate this government responsibility to safeguard the needs of children by placing individual adult desires above the best interests of children.”

          Coburn: “Marriage, defined as the union of one man and one woman, is the foundation of the family and human society.”

          Cornyn: “U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, sent a letter to his Senate colleagues Wednesday calling for action to defend marriage between a man and a woman.”

          DeMint: “DeMint believes marriage is the cornerstone to building strong families and communities, and must be protected. For this reason, the senator has consistently supported an amendment to the United States Constitution declaring marriage shall only consist of a legal union between a man and a woman.”

          Hatch: “Marriage is the fundamental building block of our society. For many years, many have tried to undermine the traditional family and have asked judges to redefine marriage, providing a constitutional guarantee for same-sex marriage. I have been one of the leading voices in the Senate against this agenda of judicial activism.”

          Now, TC, let’s hear your definition of “marriage”.

          • True Conservative says:

            Thank you, again, for proving my position.

            When you write reactionary declarations like “If you are not a “social conservative” then you are NOT a Conservative, PERIOD!” you demonstrate how limited is your appreciation of conservative philosophy.

            Social conservatives are a break-out group at the convention, they are not the heart and soul of the (R) party and, in truth, they really aren’t conservatives.

            They favor the imposition of big, federal government in to the moral and social lives of all Americans. That is not a conservative value, but it is one of yours, as demonstrated by your love of the big-brother legislation listed above.

            That’s all fine, but for the fact that you run off those voters who do support conservative values, driving them to vote for (D). After all, in your world a (D) can be a fiscal conservative, or a constitutional conservative, or even a foreign policy conservative, so why should they vote for the curmudgeon who is so weak in his personal sense of family and morality that he can’t sleep at night for the worry that others might be sleeping together.

            • Conservative American says:

              On the contrary, TC. Thank YOU so very much for proving MY position.

              Gee, I guess all of the information above about Conservatives just wasn’t enough for you. That’s okay. I’ll help you out a little more with what is Conservative and what is not. I know that as a radical, ultra left liberal that it is difficult, if not impossible, for you to grasp what is Conservative and what is not. Here, this will help:

              “CPAC balloting confirms GOProud out for 2012″

              “Posted: July 29, 2011″

              “It’s been confirmed. GOProud, the “conservative” organization that has homosexual “rights” at the top of its agenda, is out for the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference.”

              “The event, organized by the American Conservative Union, is one of the largest conferences for conservatives held anywhere in the United States each year.”

              In a letter dated today and addressed to Jimmy LaSalvia at GOProud, Gregg Keller, national executive director for the ACU, said, “The American Conservative Union is preparing to open registration and announce sponsorship opportunities for our Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2012. As a courtesy to your organization, a previous co-sponsor of CPAC, this letter serves to inform you GOProud will not be invited to participate in a formal role for CPAC events scheduled during the 2012 election cycle.”

              http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=328037

              The Heritage Foundation boycotted the Conservative Political Action Conference last year because GOProud was permitted to be a sponsor. So did U. S. Senator Jim DeMint and other Conservatives. The issue was that GOProud gave interviews where it opposed traditional marriage.

              • True Conservative says:

                You can sight all the social conservative groups you want. You can cite all the wingnut, far-right groups you want. It doesn’t address the issue of what the core thinks and how the core votes.

                That’s why you’re a joke.

              • Conservative American says:

                Well, TC, what about this?

                Each of the following senators was given a “Defenders of Liberty” honor by the American Conservative Union and given a “Perfect 2010 ACU Rating of 100″.

                Barrasso: “In the state Senate, in addition to receiving an ‘A’ rating from the NRA, I have voted for prayer in schools, against gay marriage and have sponsored legislation to protect the sanctity of life.”

                Brownback: “Giving public sanction to homosexual “marriage” would violate this government responsibility to safeguard the needs of children by placing individual adult desires above the best interests of children.”

                Coburn: “Marriage, defined as the union of one man and one woman, is the foundation of the family and human society.”

                Cornyn: “U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, sent a letter to his Senate colleagues Wednesday calling for action to defend marriage between a man and a woman.”

                DeMint: “DeMint believes marriage is the cornerstone to building strong families and communities, and must be protected. For this reason, the senator has consistently supported an amendment to the United States Constitution declaring marriage shall only consist of a legal union between a man and a woman.”

                Hatch: “Marriage is the fundamental building block of our society. For many years, many have tried to undermine the traditional family and have asked judges to redefine marriage, providing a constitutional guarantee for same-sex marriage. I have been one of the leading voices in the Senate against this agenda of judicial activism.”

                So all of these Republican senators are “wingnuts”? Is that it, TC?

                The Heritage Foundation, which boycotted the Conservative Political Action Conference last year because GOProud was permitted to be a sponsor, is a bunch of “winguts”? Is that it, TC?

                The American Conservative Union, which told GOProud that it cannot participate in a formal role in the Conservative Political Action Conference this year because it made statements opposing traditional marriage, is a bunch of “wingnuts”? Is that it, TC?

  35. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    True Conservative says:
    December 7, 2011 at 8:11 am
    Thank you, Wanumba and Con Am, for proving my core thesis – when conservatives allow the lunatic fringe to speak for us we lose
    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    I LOVE that you use WE for the two of you double-timing “Troofer Conservative” posers. WHo’s the lunatic here? The Conservatives posting at a *gasp* Conservative blog or a two-faced Concern Troll who is more at home at Daily Kos than here?

    I laughed out loud the other day when I saw that Instapundit’s reference for “True Conservative” is Andrew Sullivan.

    • Conservative American says:

      Hey, nice one, wanumba! :-)

    • True Conservative says:

      In other words – you got nothing so you pathetically retreat to you all-to-worn hovel of insult and deflection.

      Your concession is noted and accepted.

      • Conservative American says:

        Both wanumba and I concede that you are an ultra-left, same sex marriage liberal propagandist trying to pass yourself off as a Conservative.

        You admission of those facts is accepted and duly noted for the record.

        • True Conservative says:

          You do realize that you just embarrassed yourself, right?

          Please tell me this is all just some sort of liberal kabuki theater, because no one can be as dumb as you and still claim to vote (R).

          Wait, that’s right. You don’t vote (R), you only vote for Social Conservatives, and one is not on the ballot then you don’t vote.

          Guess you’ll be sitting this election out.

          • Conservative American says:

            We don’t want to hear more of your convoluted Pinko verbiage propaganda, TC. We want to hear your definition of marriage.

            Define “marriage” for us, TC.

            Here’s the definition of marriage from REAL “true conservative”, U. S. Senator Jim DeMint:

            “Family Values”

            “DeMint believes marriage is the cornerstone to building strong families and communities, and must be protected. For this reason, the senator has consistently supported an amendment to the United States Constitution declaring marriage shall only consist of a legal union between a man and a woman. Also, DeMint has consistently defended federal law pertaining to the sanctity of marriage, including his support for the Marriage Protection Act of 2004. He believes traditional marriage is an important foundation for creating healthy family formation so children will be in raised in the healthiest of environments, setting the stage for their future success.”

            http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=FamilyValues

            You claim that you are Conservative and that wanumba and I are not. So let’s find out right now who is Conservative and who is not Conservative. Give us your definition of marriage, TC, and let’s see how it stacks up with marriage as defined by REAL “true conservative”, U. S. Senator Jim DeMint.

            Define “marriage” for us, TC.

            • True Conservative says:

              You need to read my previous posts. I’ve defined marriage for you, several times.

              I am not going to reward your illiteracy by posting on demand, especially when you continue to cower from answering questions posed to you.

              Remember this one: “This is not a court room and I don’t have to answer your questions?”

              What a darling little hypocrite you are. Dance for us, monkey, dance.

              • Conservative American says:

                Define “marriage” for us, TC.

                You start out like this: “Marriage is…”

                Now is that REALLY beyond you intellectual capacity? You’re worse off than I thought, LOL!

  36. @ True Conservative,
    Take my advise, don’t engage ConAm in discussion. He/She is a nut job or a “cross threaded wing nut”. He/She is a BIBLIBAN, not unlike a Taliban biblibans are mentally stuck in the 14th century as far as knowledge and culture is concerned.
    Progression of human advancement is not of their priority or agenda.
    ConAm is a sick puppy.
    You are absolutely correct when you stated “They are so far to the Right that they are wrong”.
    Looking to the future.
    With the possible exception of Ron Paul or Mitt Romney as our candidates, we will not regain the White House in 2012.
    Perry, and any other Bible Freaks won’t have a chance.
    Americans of the 21st Century, and especially the College Educated Women will no longer bow to the male dominated crop of biblical nut jobs.

    • If you can’t tell the difference between a Christian and a Taliban, you have a serious analytical deficit.’

      I’m sitting in a Muslim country right now reading your unbelievably ignorant comments. You are basing your voting decisions on that grossly ignorant and willfully blind bigotry, and you have the vapid cheek to boast about it?

      • :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
        Horst says:
        Americans of the 21st Century, and especially the College Educated Women will no longer bow to the male dominated crop of biblical nut jobs
        :::::::::::::::::::

        The Democrat Left ran to Egypt to jack the protests, meddling in other country’s internal affairs, the biggest names in AMerican Radical 1%ers, like Weatherman Bill Ayers, and Code PINK, pushing to tear out the existing government without any alternative and then RUSHING the elections so that the ONLY political party what was ready for this was the radical violent Muslim Brotherhood, AS PREDICTED by people who WARNED this would happen.

        Rich brats like Susan “Medea” Benjamin in her repulsive pink danced and screeched around, then EXITED – ran away.

        All those “College-educated Women” in Egypt who were in the streets protesting for democracy just got their WORSE NIGHTMARE. – a Fundamentalist Islamic Regime with Sharia Law. These “College-Educated Women” will be some man’s PROPERTY, told to cover up, and no school or work for them, or be beaten for it. They will disappear for a generation, their hopes and dreams shattered.

        Those poor Egyptian College Educated Women foolishly thought the American Atheist Leftists CARED. They’ll be doing a lot of bowing to their male-dominated Taliban totalitarian overlords .. or pay the price in blood and bruises.

        Get up to speed Horst. This is serious business.

        • But I do Wanumba, Taliban takes its clues from the Koran, Bibliban takes their clues from the Scriptures aka the Bible.
          Not much difference here both were written by men 1400 and 2000 years ago and neither knew the world was round nor that it span around its own axis.
          You knew that or did you?

          • Is that a new word in Progressive atheism? “Bibliban?”

            Oh, just great, you can’t handle facing what everyone else has to face and are running off to change the subject to stupidities. YOu want to tell your stupid and irresponsible theory of Taliban to the Nigerian CHristians who were just attcked by hard-core radical Taliban Bokka Haram Muslims?

    • Conservative American says:

      Well, Horst, I would rather be what I am than a Godless Pinko like you who thinks that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, LOL!

    • I prefer to call them “Talibornagains” Same basic adherence to outdated dogma, but at least they shave. LOL

      • Conservative American says:

        Shaving is something you should consider, sweetheart. Your pits are getting to be a liilte furry and the boys don’t go for that.

  37. Conservative American says:

    Well, hello there, Horst! :-)

    Still sticking by this rationale?

    Horst wrote: “Furthermore I do believe that none of you has a right to prevent a gay or lesbian person from getting married to another gay or lesbian person. Why? Because neither of you can establish that gay or lesbian marriage is a threat or a harm to you.”

    So as long as something isn’t a threat or a harm to you, it’s okay. Those are YOUR criteria. Pedophilia isn’t a threat or a harm to you. You aren’t even a kid. So, by your rational, pedophilia must be okay.

    Horst wrote: “There is no such a thing as God…”

    Are you still an confirmed atheist, Horst? That might explain why your rationale regarding homosexual “marriage” would also allow for pedophilia.

    • True Conservative says:

      Of all the dumb posts you have written, the one above may be the dumbest of them all.

      Clearly you have no understanding of the law, its history or the language in which it is discussed.

      When Horst writes that you can not establish that gay marriage is a threat or a harm to you he is clearly discussing the impact not to you as an individual, but to you as a representative of society.

      We outlaw pedophilia not simply because of the harm it presents to the specific victim, but also to the threat it presents to all of our quiet enjoyment of our day-to-day lives and the harm it causes society.

      Further, it seems more than a bit disingenuous to first claim that homosexual marriage harms you and to then backtrack from that claim when you are called out for its folly, all the while desperately trying to mock the person who has so firmly and absolutely denuded your fanciful conceits.

      Either learn how the issue is discussed, or stay quiet when adults are talking.

      Gay marriage is bothersome to you and me, but that’s not the issue. Conservative don’t like the federal government legislating morality except when a compelling reason exists, and then we examine that reason under the strictest of scrutiny.

      Just because we think something is icky does not mean it must be made illegal.

      • Conservative American says:

        More garbage verbiage from TC. We’re not interested in hearing your verbose Pinko propaganda. We want to hear your definition of marriage.

        Define “marriage” for us, TC.

        You claim that you are a Conservative and that wanumba and I are not Conservatives. Let’s find out who is Conservative and who is not right now, shall we?

        Here is how REAL “true conservative”, U. S. Senator Jim DeMint, defines marriage:

        “Family Values”

        “DeMint believes marriage is the cornerstone to building strong families and communities, and must be protected. For this reason, the senator has consistently supported an amendment to the United States Constitution declaring marriage shall only consist of a legal union between a man and a woman. Also, DeMint has consistently defended federal law pertaining to the sanctity of marriage, including his support for the Marriage Protection Act of 2004. He believes traditional marriage is an important foundation for creating healthy family formation so children will be in raised in the healthiest of environments, setting the stage for their future success.”

        http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=FamilyValues

        Now let’s hear your definition of marriage and see how it stacks up against marriage as defined by a REAL “true conservative”.

        • Hey, why ask DeMint, let Gingrich another real conservative be the guiding light on real traditional christian value marriage, or shall we call it Un-marriage?

          • Conservative American says:

            ROFL! Gingrich? A Conservative? He’s about as Conservative as Nancy Pelosi, LOL!

          • Conservative American says:

            Besides, Horst, we have these Conservatives to look to:

            Barrasso: “In the state Senate, in addition to receiving an ‘A’ rating from the NRA, I have voted for prayer in schools, against gay marriage and have sponsored legislation to protect the sanctity of life.”

            Brownback: “Giving public sanction to homosexual “marriage” would violate this government responsibility to safeguard the needs of children by placing individual adult desires above the best interests of children.”

            Coburn: “Marriage, defined as the union of one man and one woman, is the foundation of the family and human society.”

            Cornyn: “U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, sent a letter to his Senate colleagues Wednesday calling for action to defend marriage between a man and a woman.”

            DeMint: “DeMint believes marriage is the cornerstone to building strong families and communities, and must be protected. For this reason, the senator has consistently supported an amendment to the United States Constitution declaring marriage shall only consist of a legal union between a man and a woman.”

            Hatch: “Marriage is the fundamental building block of our society. For many years, many have tried to undermine the traditional family and have asked judges to redefine marriage, providing a constitutional guarantee for same-sex marriage. I have been one of the leading voices in the Senate against this agenda of judicial activism.”

            Akin: “Congressman Todd Akin, Chairman of the Seapower & Projection Forces Subcomittee, today released a letter to Senate leadership calling for the inclusion of language protecting traditional marriage on the National Defense Authorization Act.”

            Alexander: “In addition, I believe in the sanctity of marriage and support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.”

            Blackburn: “Congressman Blackburn is a committed advocate for pro-life policy in the U.S. House, and is dedicated to preserving the traditional institution of marriage.”

        • True Conservative says:

          Come now, dear child, be a good boy and stay on point.

          Insults and diversions are for the intellectually weak – you don’t want the other SA readers to think you don’t have the ability to actually argue your point, now do you?

      • Debating CA is a waste of time, he doesn’t have the skill to actually debate, and after he get proven wrong (usually very early in the debate) he just starts slinging poo like a monkey in a cage. Its funny, but not intentionally.

        He is a good representative of the extremist fringe, a good example of what not to be.

        • Conservative American says:

          The usual radical, ultra liberal, Pinko line, LOL!

          How do you get access to a computer in an instutition for the mentally deranged, pray tell?

          Ah, Lampoon! The perfect representative for the Commie lunatic fringe. A good example of what to be if you want to live under Communism.

          • Thanks for living up to your stereotype as an uneducated dullard who can’t debate but can only fling silly invective. Shouldn’t you be out getting ready for your 20th GED class reunion?

            • Conservative American says:

              Thanks for living up to actually being the consumate uneducated dullard who thinks that “debate” is hurling juvenile insults.

              Hey, your diaper is leaking. Better toddle home so mommy can tidy you up, little man.

              • Hey coward, going to answer any of my questions?

                If you went to college, you would have taken a debate class…oh, wait, I forgot…you weren’t ever up for higher learning were you?

                LOL

              • Conservative American says:

                Coward? Care to say that to my face?

                The only education you ever got was at your Commie indoctrination camp, LOL!

  38. Funny how no one has mentioned that Arpaio willfully ignored 430+ complaints of sexual abuse, many involving minors. The “tough” sheriff made a half assed fake apology to the victims. So, for all the people here angry about pedophiles (and you should be angry), what did your hero do about it? Not a damned thing. Hope you think about that. Arpaio thinks its more important to bust some dishwashers and use all the SWAT teams and have all the TV stations film him, but he didn’t do jack about sexually abused kids. The silence here is deafening.

    • Conservative American says:

      What’s the matter, Lampoon, don’t want to talk about homosexual “marriage” any more?

      • I answered all the questions, but you didn’t, you never answer questions, what are you afraid of “Conservative” American?

        By not answering, you look like more of a pussy.

Speak Your Mind

*