What social issues do you thing Conservatives waste time and effort on? - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - What social issues do you thing Conservatives waste time and effort on? (Page 2 of 4)

Posted: 9/12/2010 1:42:59 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Illegal immigration.

They're here. Most of them work. 100% of them pay at least sales taxes. A large percentage also pay income taxes; they just don't get a refund because they are using a made-up SSN or somebody else's SSN (full disclosure: I am against Social Security and income taxes in the first place).

That leaves the problem of them using government services. I don't know if that is actually prevalent or not, but let's say it is. If so, my contention is that the problem is not one group of people who are receiving benefits that were paid for by money taken from me, but rather that the money was taken from me to begin with. Once the money is taken from me, it matters not whether it is given to someone who wasn't born here, or to some deadbeat who was born here.

when theres more people using and not paying and they only go after people you you for the bill it becomes a problem . even if they were leagal theyd still be not paying any federal tax because of their income level. If importing poverty on your dime is okay with you then you might as well just vote democrat.

Posted: 9/12/2010 1:47:49 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Abortion.

Great, gain 10 % of each Middle Left & undecieded while losing 35% of you Base and 5 % each of Pro Life undecieded & middle of the road socially .

Yes, if the Republicans drop abortion as a major plank, then conservatives everywhere are going to flock to the Democratic banner. I think not.

They will stay home in far larger numbers than 08 and the way Dems will in 10

There are a lot of pro-choice conservatives out there, and here at Arfcom.

We have different opinions on the matter, and as I said above, no one is going to change their mind.

Thats like saying there are lotsa Elected Pro Life Democrats ...

I don't see a connection. Most of my friends are conservatives, and most of them are either pro-choice or indifferent.

Thats funny I have found it the oppisit ...

May I ask your approximate age? I suspect that may have something to do with our different experiences.

Posted: 9/12/2010 1:57:57 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Abortion.

Great, gain 10 % of each Middle Left & undecieded while losing 35% of you Base and 5 % each of Pro Life undecieded & middle of the road socially .

Yes, if the Republicans drop abortion as a major plank, then conservatives everywhere are going to flock to the Democratic banner. I think not.

They will stay home in far larger numbers than 08 and the way Dems will in 10

You'd gain more than 10%. Abortion is a women's issue, and if people stay home because they're not able to restrict women's rights, quite honestly, Fuck them.

The Bible Thumper bullsheite is exactly the reason I always have a very hard time voting Republican.

Quoted:

if conservatives believed in smaller government they would be fighting for government having nothing to do with marriage whether it be tax breaks or penalties and all rights to significant others would simply be handled by signing a witnessed contract.

i think it is unconstitutional that i get different treatmeent for being married in the first place and creates the entire problem of gay marriage.

BINGO was his name-O. I couldn't have put that better.

I'm not a one issue voter other than on gun rights, and have voted for pro choice Republicans. My current representative is pro choice. My being against abortion doesn't have anything to do with the Bible. You say it's a women's right, but what about the right of the baby about to be killed? The baby has its own DNA, which makes it a separate person from the mother and the father. Would you also agree with the parents killing their child after it was born. Logically I see no difference.

I personally don't have a problem with gay marriage, if churches that disagree with it aren't forced to preform the marriages. The end goal of the gay rights movement in my opinion.

If you want the Dems to have a permanent majority, drop all the social issues from the Republican platform. There's already a political party for small government without the social issues. How well have they done?

Posted: 9/12/2010 2:09:10 PM EDT

[#4]

Any and every time they try and force their moral on others, same with liberals. You're entitled to your beliefs, but you are not entitled to the ability to force them on me.

Posted: 9/12/2010 2:14:09 PM EDT

[#5]

For those of you saying "Gay Marriage".
Gay marriage is not about religion or gay freedom, it's about money.

They want the government to force private businesses to give the same spousal benefits, medical and otherwise, that private businesses have decided they will offer married workers.

If I own a business, and I decide to offer family medical benefits, that's my decision.
Mine alone.
If the government recognizes gay marriage, must I also be forced to recognize it?
Even if I don't agree it is legitimate? and therefore offer the same benefits?

It's a fiscal issue.

A guy can suck another guy's hairy balls all day long as far as I care.
When they persuade the government to force me to recognize them as a couple, and affect my bottom line, then they take their behavior out of their own bedroom and into my boardroom.

Everything else; hospital visits, inheritances, passing of property, shared property rights, raising of children, etc.
Everything commonly practiced by a married couple can be practiced by a gay couple with a few legal documents - right now.

Posted: 9/12/2010 2:22:19 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
I'm not a one issue voter other than on gun rights, and have voted for pro choice Republicans. My current representative is pro choice. My being against abortion doesn't have anything to do with the Bible. You say it's a women's right, but what about the right of the baby about to be killed? The baby has its own DNA, which makes it a separate person from the mother and the father. Would you also agree with the parents killing their child after it was born. Logically I see no difference.

I see your point. I believe that were people limited to only very early term abortions it might be a bit more palatable. Late term is abhorrent.

Quoted:
I personally don't have a problem with gay marriage, if churches that disagree with it aren't forced to preform the marriages. The end goal of the gay rights movement in my opinion.

I 1000% agree with you. Gay marriage isn't about gay rights. If they made all marriages "Civil Unions" both sides would still scream. For Gays, the Gay marriage debate is about forcing acceptance of their lifestyle on people that don't want it, one of whom being the church.

Quoted:
If you want the Dems to have a permanent majority, drop all the social issues from the Republican platform. There's already a political party for small government without the social issues. How well have they done?

People don't think they have a chance. They believe that this is only a two party system and any vote for anything other than the two parties is a vote against their chosen direction. The Republicans have so far alienated so much of their base with Social Issues alone I'm actually surprised they'll make gains this time around. Throw in their utter lack of fiscal responsibility and you've got a losing proposition.

Posted: 9/12/2010 2:24:17 PM EDT

[#7]

I have never understood how gay marriage would affect(effect?) a straight marriage. Its like if two people had BMW's and one painted it pink and put shag carpet in it....It doesn't lower the resale value of your car.

Along with some other things...

Posted: 9/12/2010 2:25:33 PM EDT

[#8]

gay marriage, abortion, church and state.

Posted: 9/12/2010 3:50:31 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
You guys need to Vote Democrat because the GOP is not Democrat Lite yet and even though the GOP is not soicially liberal yet enough for your taste give them time ...

No, the problem is people like you who think they are a conservative because you are against gay marriage etc. etc. True conservatives do not use government authority to progress or validate their positions on social issues. You are no better than a leftists if you do. As far as I am concerned you are a leftist methodologically speaking.

Where the Republicans have gone terribly wrong in no particular order:

Political opportunism
Gay/Religious issues
Abortion
Empire Building/Foreign Adventurism
Open borders/Bush idiocy
Drug War
and most importantly SPENDING TO MUCH FUCKING MONEY!!!!!

You can't legislate morality.

Posted: 9/12/2010 4:00:56 PM EDT

[#10]

Gay Marriage.

Abortion.

Health Care.

Actually, they are wasting time at the Federal level if they do anything concerning something that is not a part of the "Enumerated Powers" of Congress.

Posted: 9/12/2010 4:08:55 PM EDT

[#11]

trying to find "Moderates" No such thing. How many times have heard or seen Demorats crossing the aisle as "Moderates" to push a Republican agenda?

Posted: 9/12/2010 4:09:47 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Gay Marriage and abortion. Both matters of choice, that do not effect my life.

I want lower taxes, fiscal conservatism, fewer entitlements, a smaller Federal Government, and a stronger State Government.

Oh, but what do I know, I'm just a taxpayer.

I want a mean old man to watch my money. Seems the GOP ran out of those kind of people.

Jesse Helms was the Last one wasn't he?

Posted: 9/12/2010 4:28:17 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You guys need to Vote Democrat because the GOP is not Democrat Lite yet and even though the GOP is not soicially liberal yet enough for your taste give them time ...

No, the problem is people like you who think they are a conservative because you are against gay marriage etc. etc. True conservatives do not use government authority to progress or validate their positions on social issues. You are no better than a leftists if you do. As far as I am concerned you are a leftist methodologically speaking.

I think you are caught in a logic loop.

The gays are trying to get the Government to support/enforce/validate (choose your term) their lifestyle.
The Libs are supporting this.

The Conservatives are trying to maintain the status quo, keeping government out of it.
They are not trying to get Government to CHANGE something.
They are not using the government authority (to use your words) at all.

The Conservative position is consistent.
Whether or not Government should recognize marriage at all, is a separate issue from expanding the standing definition which has been in use for centuries to now include gays.

Posted: 9/12/2010 4:31:25 PM EDT

[#14]

I think it's time we legalize all drugs...

Posted: 9/12/2010 4:33:52 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
We have no idea what will happen if same-sex marriages are allowed, which is a great reason to not permit it.

Umm, seeing as it's legal in several countries and a couple US states, and society hasn't fallen apart yet, we have pretty good evidence that the net effect on society is approximately zero.

And I'd say you really have the wrong attitude––one of "you're not allowed to do something unless you can justify doing it". See, I always figured on things the other way around; the government shouldn't prohibit anything unless there's an overwhelming reason to do so.

It's just amazing to me how many self-proclaimed lovers of freedom that protest even the slightest mention of having to justify gun ownership will turn right around and say that you're not allowed to do things in your private life without their say-so.

In short, the republicans are killing themselves on the "social" issues––things like demanding that passages from their religious books be plastered on public buildings and trying to get prayers for their religion inserted into public schools, or insisting on regulating others' sex lives.

Posted: 9/12/2010 4:39:55 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You guys need to Vote Democrat because the GOP is not Democrat Lite yet and even though the GOP is not soicially liberal yet enough for your taste give them time ...

No, the problem is people like you who think they are a conservative because you are against gay marriage etc. etc. True conservatives do not use government authority to progress or validate their positions on social issues. You are no better than a leftists if you do. As far as I am concerned you are a leftist methodologically speaking.

I think you are caught in a logic loop.

The gays are trying to get the Government to support/enforce/validate (choose your term) their lifestyle.
The Libs are supporting this.

The Conservatives are trying to maintain the status quo, keeping government out of it.
They are not trying to get Government to CHANGE something.
They are not using the government authority (to use your words) at all.

The Conservative position is consistent.
Whether or not Government should recognize marriage at all, is a separate issue from expanding the standing definition which has been in use for centuries to now include gays.

That is the core issue and there is no getting around it.

Posted: 9/12/2010 4:41:34 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Gay marriage
Abortion
Religion/Prayer in schools (send your kids to a religious school if you want this)

OK, but I don't agree with kids being disiplined or punished in any way if they want to pray before eating their lunch.
That is the problem IMO

Posted: 9/12/2010 4:59:48 PM EDT

[#18]

Again I have read the term separation of church and state. There is no mention of this in the Constitution and it never existed till Hugo Black's legal Clerk Leo Pfefer inserted into the decision of Emerson v Board of Education in 1947. The Constitution states that Congress shall not recognize an establishment of religion, meaning there would be no state church as in England or other European countries.

Having said that I am a conservative socially and fiscally and I do not want a Democrat Lite party. if you have progressive ideas then by all means vote Democrat but do not ask the GOP to change their platform. And yes in true conservatism the social and fiscal aspects are tied together. take it FWIW.

Posted: 9/12/2010 5:04:56 PM EDT

[#19]

All of them, but to be fair they're sort of stuck with them.

If conservatives stop wasting time and effort on the social issues, everyone will realize there's nothing else to them.

Posted: 9/12/2010 5:09:47 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You guys need to Vote Democrat because the GOP is not Democrat Lite yet and even though the GOP is not soicially liberal yet enough for your taste give them time ...

No, the problem is people like you who think they are a conservative because you are against gay marriage etc. etc. True conservatives do not use government authority to progress or validate their positions on social issues. You are no better than a leftists if you do. As far as I am concerned you are a leftist methodologically speaking.

I think you are caught in a logic loop.

The gays are trying to get the Government to support/enforce/validate (choose your term) their lifestyle.
The Libs are supporting this.

The Conservatives are trying to maintain the status quo, keeping government out of it.
They are not trying to get Government to CHANGE something.
They are not using the government authority (to use your words) at all.

The Conservative position is consistent.
Whether or not Government should recognize marriage at all, is a separate issue from expanding the standing definition which has been in use for centuries to now include gays.

Making it illegal to do something is NOT = using government authority? Exactly how the fuck is the government saying "FUCK NO" behind the force of a law "staying out of it" but saying "meh, whatevs" is an example of not "staying out of it?"

Umm, okay.

The conservative position is that the government should stay out of people's lives unless they are doing something YOU disapprove of.

Posted: 9/12/2010 5:13:23 PM EDT

[#21]

Republicans are not against gay marriage as much as democrats are for it.

Posted: 9/12/2010 5:20:16 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You guys need to Vote Democrat because the GOP is not Democrat Lite yet and even though the GOP is not soicially liberal yet enough for your taste give them time ...

No, the problem is people like you who think they are a conservative because you are against gay marriage etc. etc. True conservatives do not use government authority to progress or validate their positions on social issues. You are no better than a leftists if you do. As far as I am concerned you are a leftist methodologically speaking.

I think you are caught in a logic loop.

The gays are trying to get the Government to support/enforce/validate (choose your term) their lifestyle.
The Libs are supporting this.

The Conservatives are trying to maintain the status quo, keeping government out of it.
They are not trying to get Government to CHANGE something.
They are not using the government authority (to use your words) at all.

The Conservative position is consistent.
Whether or not Government should recognize marriage at all, is a separate issue from expanding the standing definition which has been in use for centuries to now include gays.

That's some fucked up "logic". Shameful.

Posted: 9/12/2010 5:20:20 PM EDT

[#23]

ALL of them.

Posted: 9/12/2010 6:14:48 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You guys need to Vote Democrat because the GOP is not Democrat Lite yet and even though the GOP is not soicially liberal yet enough for your taste give them time ...

No, the problem is people like you who think they are a conservative because you are against gay marriage etc. etc. True conservatives do not use government authority to progress or validate their positions on social issues. You are no better than a leftists if you do. As far as I am concerned you are a leftist methodologically speaking.

I think you are caught in a logic loop.

The gays are trying to get the Government to support/enforce/validate (choose your term) their lifestyle.
The Libs are supporting this.

The Conservatives are trying to maintain the status quo, keeping government out of it.
They are not trying to get Government to CHANGE something.
They are not using the government authority (to use your words) at all.

The Conservative position is consistent.
Whether or not Government should recognize marriage at all, is a separate issue from expanding the standing definition which has been in use for centuries to now include gays.

Making it illegal to do something is NOT = using government authority? Exactly how the fuck is the government saying "FUCK NO" behind the force of a law "staying out of it" but saying "meh, whatevs" is an example of not "staying out of it?"

Umm, okay.

The conservative position is that the government should stay out of people's lives unless they are doing something YOU disapprove of.

If the government took NO ACTION, then the status quo is preserved.
They're not "making" government do anything.
They're trying to prevent another group from making government do something.

This wasn't an issue until the other side started trying to get the government into it.
The government wasn't and isn't involved, until they started getting it involved.
One side wants no change - NOT action.

Governement should stay out of it, but one side is dragging government into it.
The other side is trying to PREVENT government from getting involved in it.

Where is the disconnect?

Posted: 9/12/2010 6:17:07 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You guys need to Vote Democrat because the GOP is not Democrat Lite yet and even though the GOP is not soicially liberal yet enough for your taste give them time ...

No, the problem is people like you who think they are a conservative because you are against gay marriage etc. etc. True conservatives do not use government authority to progress or validate their positions on social issues. You are no better than a leftists if you do. As far as I am concerned you are a leftist methodologically speaking.

I think you are caught in a logic loop.

The gays are trying to get the Government to support/enforce/validate (choose your term) their lifestyle.
The Libs are supporting this.

The Conservatives are trying to maintain the status quo, keeping government out of it.
They are not trying to get Government to CHANGE something.
They are not using the government authority (to use your words) at all.

The Conservative position is consistent.
Whether or not Government should recognize marriage at all, is a separate issue from expanding the standing definition which has been in use for centuries to now include gays.

That is the core issue and there is no getting around it.

Not trying to be argumentative here, but I don't understand the point you are trying to make regarding the issue.

Posted: 9/12/2010 6:18:51 PM EDT

[#26]

Drugs, drug war.

Posted: 9/12/2010 6:20:34 PM EDT

[#27]

Most social issues.

Posted: 9/12/2010 6:21:53 PM EDT

[#28]

Gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research

Posted: 9/12/2010 6:25:34 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Me? Gay Marriage. I could care less about this and seeing people stump against it...waste of time. My marriage will not fall apart overnight if gays are allowed to get married.

Also, things like "in God we trust" and the 10 commandants in schools/ court houses as an example, I do not need the government 'validating' my belief in God.

What other social issues do you think Conservatives waste time, effort and money on? Please articulate the reason(s) why.

This. Conservatives could gain alot of extra votes if they just let the gay community be as miserable as the straight married people.

Posted: 9/12/2010 6:32:49 PM EDT

[#30]

Without knuckle-dragging morons who thrive on specific social issues, neither party would know what to do with themselves.

Social issues are the fuel that both parties use to muster up their bases. Subsequently, the important issues get swept under the rug.
I hope a good number of Congresscritters experience horrible, wretched deaths... preferably by accidents; we don't need any martyrs right now.

- BG

Posted: 9/12/2010 6:44:42 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Again I have read the term separation of church and state. There is no mention of this in the Constitution and it never existed till Hugo Black's legal Clerk Leo Pfefer inserted into the decision of Emerson v Board of Education in 1947. The Constitution states that Congress shall not recognize an establishment of religion, meaning there would be no state church as in England or other European countries.

Having said that I am a conservative socially and fiscally and I do not want a Democrat Lite party. if you have progressive ideas then by all means vote Democrat but do not ask the GOP to change their platform. And yes in true conservatism the social and fiscal aspects are tied together. take it FWIW.

Well, that's not exactly true...

"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State".
–– Thomas Jefferson, to Danbury Baptists, 1802 . This was used again by Jefferson in his letter to the Virginia Baptsits, and was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 US at 164, 1879); Emerson (330 US at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 US at 232, 1948)

Posted: 9/12/2010 6:50:00 PM EDT

[#32]

What social issues do you thing Conservatives waste time and effort on?

At the federal level, all of them. I don't think the federal government has any business dealing in "social issues".

Posted: 9/12/2010 6:51:20 PM EDT

[#33]

At the Federal level?

All of them.

Social issues are by Constitutional definition a local thing.

Posted: 9/12/2010 6:51:52 PM EDT

[#34]

did you feel the same way about the FINAL SOLUTION? it's nothing more than genocide and the people targeted are too fucking dumb to know better.

Quoted:

Abortion. It is one of the most divisive issues, no one is going to change their mind, and people just need to get past it. There are more important things to deal with.

Posted: 9/12/2010 6:54:11 PM EDT

[#35]

Anything that will neither break their leg nor pick their pocket. For republicans this usually is something religiously motivated that involves something other people do at home that wouldn't impact them anyway. There must be some changing of ways if the party is to survive.

Posted: 9/12/2010 6:54:37 PM EDT

[#36]

you pretty much got it covered, they should give up bullshit social issues and focus on smaller .gov and less spending

rather than trying to mandate how people shoud live their lives or how to instill morals in people and all that good stuff

Posted: 9/12/2010 6:56:42 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Anything that will neither break their leg nor pick their pocket. For republicans this usually is something religiously motivated that involves something other people do at home that wouldn't impact them anyway. There must be some changing of ways if the party is to survive.

How Many Religeous Zealots are GOP US Senators or US Congressman and run on that platform & Push & vote that agenda first & foremost ? (Let me Know so I can send them money ???)

Posted: 9/12/2010 6:59:53 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Again I have read the term separation of church and state. There is no mention of this in the Constitution and it never existed till Hugo Black's legal Clerk Leo Pfefer inserted into the decision of Emerson v Board of Education in 1947. The Constitution states that Congress shall not recognize an establishment of religion, meaning there would be no state church as in England or other European countries.

Having said that I am a conservative socially and fiscally and I do not want a Democrat Lite party. if you have progressive ideas then by all means vote Democrat but do not ask the GOP to change their platform. And yes in true conservatism the social and fiscal aspects are tied together. take it FWIW.

Well, that's not exactly true...

"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State".

–– Thomas Jefferson, to Danbury Baptists, 1802 . This was used again by Jefferson in his letter to the Virginia Baptsits, and was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 US at 164, 1879); Emerson (330 US at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 US at 232, 1948)

Again reading is key. NO WHERE in the CONSTITUTION will you find the phrase. ...

Posted: 9/12/2010 7:07:14 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Again I have read the term separation of church and state. There is no mention of this in the Constitution and it never existed till Hugo Black's legal Clerk Leo Pfefer inserted into the decision of Emerson v Board of Education in 1947. The Constitution states that Congress shall not recognize an establishment of religion, meaning there would be no state church as in England or other European countries.

Having said that I am a conservative socially and fiscally and I do not want a Democrat Lite party. if you have progressive ideas then by all means vote Democrat but do not ask the GOP to change their platform. And yes in true conservatism the social and fiscal aspects are tied together. take it FWIW.

Well, that's not exactly true...

"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State".
–– Thomas Jefferson, to Danbury Baptists, 1802 . This was used again by Jefferson in his letter to the Virginia Baptsits, and was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 US at 164, 1879); Emerson (330 US at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 US at 232, 1948)

Again reading is key. NO WHERE in the CONSTITUTION will you find the phrase. ...

So I take it a Muslim, Hindu or Shinto government will be OK with you?

Posted: 9/12/2010 7:07:30 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
did you feel the same way about the FINAL SOLUTION? it's nothing more than genocide and the people targeted are too fucking dumb to know better.

Quoted:
Abortion. It is one of the most divisive issues, no one is going to change their mind, and people just need to get past it. There are more important things to deal with.

One of my friends is buddies with this black woman who is a raging "pro-choicer". The last time she started ranting about how some of her student's parents (she is an elementary school teacher) should have had an abortion I almost lost my cool. The next time I probably will just go ahead and lay into her about how Margaret Sanger was trying to do for [black people] what the 86' Hughes amendment did for machine guns.

Posted: 9/12/2010 7:24:24 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Me? Gay Marriage. I could care less about this and seeing people stump against it...waste of time. My marriage will not fall apart overnight if gays are allowed to get married.

A little self-centered, aren't we? We have no idea what will happen if same-sex marriages are allowed, which is a great reason to not permit it.

Actually I would say that we do have a good idea what will happen if same-sex marriage is allowed: A few years later a shitload of same sex divorces start happening.

Posted: 9/12/2010 7:29:18 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Me? Gay Marriage. I could care less about this and seeing people stump against it...waste of time. My marriage will not fall apart overnight if gays are allowed to get married.

A little self-centered, aren't we? We have no idea what will happen if same-sex marriages are allowed, which is a great reason to not permit it.

Actually I would say that we do have a good idea what will happen if same-sex marriage is allowed: A few years later a shitload of same sex divorces start happening.

75% of Lesbian Marriges end in Divorce within 5 years .

Posted: 9/12/2010 7:33:09 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Me? Gay Marriage. I could care less about this and seeing people stump against it...waste of time. My marriage will not fall apart overnight if gays are allowed to get married.

A little self-centered, aren't we? We have no idea what will happen if same-sex marriages are allowed, which is a great reason to not permit it.

Actually I would say that we do have a good idea what will happen if same-sex marriage is allowed: A few years later a shitload of same sex divorces start happening.

75% of Lesbian Marriges end in Divorce within 5 years .

Cite/source?

Posted: 9/12/2010 8:26:10 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Anything that will neither break their leg nor pick their pocket. For republicans this usually is something religiously motivated that involves something other people do at home that wouldn't impact them anyway. There must be some changing of ways if the party is to survive.

How Many Religeous Zealots are GOP US Senators or US Congressman and run on that platform & Push & vote that agenda first & foremost ? (Let me Know so I can send them money ???)

I should know better than to feed the trolls but...

My point is that the people attempting to legislate their religion aren't usually successful candidates and are the threat to the continued survival of the party. To illustrate that, I'd argue that the religious zealot alan keyes being run against obama for the senate is the reason that obama is president right now. An even halfway palatable republican candidate would have had a decent chance at keeping obama out of the senate. People like that aren't the path to victory, and in my own opinion aren't the morally correct choice either.

Posted: 9/12/2010 8:36:50 PM EDT

[#45]

gay marriage

stem cells - sorry fertilized eggs are not life.....if you proceed down this road, you kill off the entire science and industry of artificial reproduction, denying many the joys of parentage; call me when you get brain stem activity and I'll have your back

anti-pot/prostitution

invasive searches of electronic privacy in the name of homeland security

bailing out big business - if a business is to big to fail, then it should be broken up so that any one failure doesn't collapse the economy (yes there is risk in application - laws would need to be carefully crafted)

advocating for their local pork while saying pork in other states is bad

Posted: 9/12/2010 8:41:50 PM EDT

[#46]

Pandering to political correctness.

Posted: 9/12/2010 8:42:03 PM EDT

[#47]

Flag buring

it is so far down the list of important shit you can't even see it with a telescope

Posted: 9/12/2010 8:43:14 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
In on what will turn out to be a Christian bashing thread

they always are aren't they?......as for me....fuck the liberaltarian party.

Posted: 9/12/2010 8:43:40 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
For those of you saying "Gay Marriage".
Gay marriage is not about religion or gay freedom, it's about money.

They want the government to force private businesses to give the same spousal benefits, medical and otherwise, that private businesses have decided they will offer married workers.

If I own a business, and I decide to offer family medical benefits, that's my decision.
Mine alone.
If the government recognizes gay marriage, must I also be forced to recognize it?
Even if I don't agree it is legitimate? and therefore offer the same benefits?

It's a fiscal issue.

A guy can suck another guy's hairy balls all day long as far as I care.
When they persuade the government to force me to recognize them as a couple, and affect my bottom line, then they take their behavior out of their own bedroom and into my boardroom.

Everything else; hospital visits, inheritances, passing of property, shared property rights, raising of children, etc.
Everything commonly practiced by a married couple can be practiced by a gay couple with a few legal documents - right now.

Do you currently only employee gays so you don't have to pay "family" benefits? That would save you a bundle......

Brian

Posted: 9/12/2010 8:46:25 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
if conservatives believed in smaller government they would be fighting for government having nothing to do with marriage whether it be tax breaks or penalties and all rights to significant others would simply be handled by signing a witnessed contract.

i think it is unconstitutional that i get different treatmeent for being married in the first place and creates the entire problem of gay marriage.

This. People get caught up in the minutiae of these issues and miss the big picture altogether.

ETA: My motto= I don't care what you shove up your butt. However, don't tell my kids it's ok and don't expect me to pay for it when it gets infected.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - What social issues do you thing Conservatives waste time and effort on? (Page 2 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us