The homosexual lobby has worn this conservative down. Civil unions are acceptable to me now mostly just because “I don’t wanna hear it” anymore.

NTWR

nope it was because the position against it is indefensible.

jummy on February 7, 2007 at 1:36 PM

Yep, you’re right..it IS indefensible to appreciate and want to defend the American culture and traditions that have been around 200+ years.

Wakey wakey, hands off snakey jummy!

The homosexual lobby has worn this conservative down. Civil unions are acceptable to me now mostly just because “I don’t wanna hear it” anymore.

NTWR

nope it was because the position against it is indefensible.

President Hillary Clinton, or President Barack Obama. Which do you prefer?

All I know is I’m not voting for Romney, and Newt has shown little interest in running at all. Brownback couldn’t get enough votes, by any means.

BTW, didn’t Mr. Conservative (Barry Golwater)’s daughter have an abortion?

Second choice Romney/Guiliani ’08

aren’t you comparing apples to oranges? There was nothing immoral about womens suffrage. Allowing women to vote doesn’t go against nature.

Guardian on February 6, 2007 at 8:43 PM

At the time that was exactly the argument–going against nature–that was made.

I’m against gay marriage because it’s defined as between a man and a woman. I don’t see an issue with a civil union, though.

Ian on February 6, 2007 at 9:08 PM

But when it comes down to it, what is the difference between the two?

Personally, I think we should just have an all or nothing. If we’re going to change marriage (or if you prefer, call them unions), then let’s just change it all.

Let’s just turn marriage into a legal contract like all other legal contracts. Allow partnerships that are composed of as many people, regardless of their relationship, as is desired, so long as each individual is clear in understanding the contract.

Animals? People leave millions of dollars to their pets in wills, and there’s currently a documentary out about a man who died through horse sex. If the current level of acceptance of homosexuality has taught us anything, it’s that sexual practices that were once tabboo can become common place without marriage certificates.

And I’m not trying to compare homosexuality to bestiality. I’m just saying that marriage hasn’t seem to have made an impact on relationships in society. It’s seemed to have worked the other way around. And these days many people have opted out of the whole marriage thing altogether and simple live together.

Is this really something worth fighting over?

Really, all or nothing… if you’re going to fight for marriage, then why stop at homosexuality anyway? Why not actually fight for marriage as it is and seek to improve it, seek to lower divorce rates and adultry?

Why is marriage only a thing worth saving when someone else wants in? Why wasn’t it worth saving before?

Every friggin’ topic posted gets reduced to friggin’ gay friggin’ rights friggin’ friggin.

Wrong. He supports unions, not marriage? And please don’t respond with the “slippery slope” “argument.”

Ian on February 6, 2007 at 7:41 PM

Big,fat,hairy difference Ian. I bet you think the second amendment is about duck hunting,too.

You should know better.

aren’t you comparing apples to oranges? There was nothing immoral about womens suffrage. Allowing women to vote doesn’t go against nature.

I seem to recall reading about bigoted objections masquerading as moral dilemmas. At the time there was plenty considered immoral about women having equal standing as men in the political arena.

Allowing gays to marry doesn’t go against nature, either. Marriage, as we know it, is a human construct.

I wasn’t too keen on how we legalized gay marriage in Canada, but the country is still intact. I think the USA will survive if Adam and Steve can get married. Ideally, the state wouldn’t be able to dictate what consenting adults do.

Why don’t people who are opposed to gay civil unions come out and just say they are opposed to it because they are against it morally, etc.

That is implied by the slippery slope argument. The idea is:

“Allowing men to marry men is immoral. If we can’t say that it is immoral, then we really can’t say that the marriage between a man and two women is immoral. If the sex of the individuals involved is not important, then why is the number?”

The slope just got slipperier.

tommy1 on February 6, 2007 at 9:17 PM

That was an interesting (and amusing) article you linked to.

He is filler, not a main contender.

Look, the Canadian Football League and the NFL can get along while playing on different fields. Why do the social progressives need to play on our field?

Last time I checked, a horse can’t sign a marital agreement.

Don’t know much ’bout horseflesh, do ya boy?

…OK, I’ve said too much….