Skip to main content

The 'Conservatives' Who Clapped for Carrie Underwood Going Left

Tim Graham's picture

"Good for her," said Jimmy LaSalvia, co-founder and executive director of GOProud, an organization that bills itself as "the voice of gay conservatives and their straight allies."

"You know, Carrie Underwood isn't any different from anyone else in America," LaSalvia said Monday in an e-mail to The Times. "The more Americans think about how issues affect their gay friends and family the more they come to realize that supporting same-sex civil marriage is the right thing to do.  More and more people are coming to that conclusion — and that includes conservative Christians.

D'Zurilla added:

"As a married person myself, I don't know what it's like to be told I can't marry somebody I love and want to marry," Underwood told the Independent. "I can't imagine how that must feel. I definitely think we should all have the right to love, and love publicly, the people that we want to love."

Raised a Baptist and known for hits including "Jesus Take the Wheel," the singer told the paper she and husband Mike Fisher, who plays for the NHL's Nashville Predators, now attend a nondenominational, "gay-friendly" Christian church. Underwood's outlook is similar to that of singer and Broadway star Kristin Chenoweth, another devout heterosexual Christian from the South who is sympathetic to gay issues.

Comments

#1 I definitely think we should

I definitely think we should all have the right to love, and love publicly, the people that we want to love."

Everyone does, Carrie. 

#2 Useful idiots.

The ONLY issue is whether "gays" get the same tax deduction and benefit that heterosexuals get when married.

Other than that, EVERY OTHER issue can be resolved via society or a legal document.

Marriage is a religious institution that has been given special privlidges by governments because they recognize that it is the basis of civilization and should be protected and encouraged. That's it.

If the income tax issue went away, there would be no reason to even talk about "gay marriage".

This is all about the lugbutt crowd getting "their piece of the government pie". To a smaller extent and for some of the more radical activists, it's also about poking a stick in the eye of religion (and thus GOD).

 

Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it! 

#3 Big deal, she's of like mind

Big deal, she's of like mind with Dennis Miller, Adam Carolla and zillions more people inclined to be on the right who don't agree with the official Republican party's platform on gay marriage.

She believes that Jesus Christ is our savior, and that is the most important thing.

#4 Be careful...

Satan believes that Jesus Christ is our savior too. But that doesn't stop him from trying to trick people into making the wrong decisions.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. But NEVER enable the sinner to continue to sin thinking it's OK.

 

Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it! 

#5 True enough. So, when do we

True enough.

So, when do we start the national movement to outlaw divorce for cases other than adultery, since Jesus said that was a HUGE no-no (love the sinner, hate the sin)? There always seems to be more outrage against gays than people who are constantly living life as adulterers.

C'mon, folks, give Carrie a break. She's one of the good ones.

--------------------

BTW, I'm not in favor of gay marriage, but neither am I in favor of blasting conservatives simply because they disagree w/me on a few issues.

#6 Now that you mention it,

I think it would be good thing to make it more difficult to get divorced.

I read somewhere (sorry that I can't provide the link right away. I suppose I could do some googling if requested) that one of Reagan's regrets was that he made no-fault divorce easy in California while governor there. That move heralded no-fault divorce laws throughtout the US and the rest is family-breakup history.

Edit: Googling:
http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-evolution-of-divorce

"Unfortunately, some people use belief-based facts rather than fact-based beliefs." -Par for the Course on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 5:38pm

#7 I think Charles Krauthammer

had an excellent piece on gay marriage - which explains why I have come to support it:

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_20656741/charles-krauthammer-same-...

I don't support it because it is a "right", I support it because I have gay friends who want to have a relationship which is complete and has the recognition of the state.

So Carrie Underwood supports gay marriage? Are we going to eat our own?

A smaller tent is not going to win elections. I would respectfully suggest that I think there are bigger issues that divide us than the gender of the person we want to have sex with and love.

Edit: And Dick Cheney publicly stated his support for gay marriage in 2009 long before someone else had an "evolution" over it. Are we going to call him a conservative in quotes?

#8 I don't support gay marriage for a variety of reasons

The desires of someone would certainly not change my mind on any moral issue. As far as tent size, that is exactly how we got so many RINO's in the GOP.

Proud member of the 53%!

#9 Well Said Rad!

Well Said Rad!

#10 You raise two distinct issues

You focused on the word desire. I ask you to read the Krauthammer piece as I think it more fully explains how I view the matter.

I think it is a mistake for Republicans to cannibalize themselves over certain issues when there are much larger issues which separate us from the Left.

Cheers

#11 I am reminded of an old saying

Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.

Proud member of the 53%!

#12 Republican follies

The Republicans now suffer from a logical inconsistency regarding gay marriage that could be exploited as the race heats up.

Romney doesn't support gay marriage, but supports adoption by gays. So, he supports gay people raising children and creating families, but doesn't support those same gays getting married. But marriage was created for the purpose of having children and creating families. So, by logic, if Romney thinks that gays should be allowed to create families, he should then support gay marriage.

It is probably the best argument against Romney because it uses a conservative argument against him.

#13 You really should sue the teacher who taught you that

2+2=5.  It's really not true, no matter what she told you.

And, if Romney does, in fact support adoption by a qualified person, that's his opinion.  Last time I checked, we're still allowed to have opinions.  I realize that some would really like to change that, but we can still hold our own opinions. 

As marriage is defined as a union of one man and one woman, there is no such thing as "gay marriage".  Simple, even for you.

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.

#14 Funny...

There is no reason for an ad hominem attack against my teacher or my intelligence. When people resort to such attacks, it's usually because they can't attack the logic of the position.

Can you lay out the logical consistency in supporting gay parenting but denying gay marriage? How does it make sense to support redefining parenthood, but not the institution created for parenthood?

#15 When one points out the inconsistencies of a poster,

it's not an "ad hominem". I covered that in the previous post, but, just for you, here it is again. "Marriage is defined as a union of one man and one woman, there is no such thing as "gay marriage". Feel free to copy and paste it, as you seem to be comprehension deficient.
And, attacking "the logic of the position"? There is no logic in your position.

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.

#16 Here you go again..

You didn't point out any inconsistencies. All you said was that Romney was entitled to his own opinions, and that "Marriage is defined as a union of one man and one woman, there is no such thing as 'gay marriage'." You also insulted my teacher and my intelligence -- that's what "ad hominem" attack means. It's rude and puerile.

So to use your own words, to facilitate your understanding here it is again:

Romney's opinion is that it is fine for two men or two women to raise children.

Another Romney opinion is that "marriage is defined as a union of one man and one woman".

But the purpose of marriage is for procreation and raising a family.

Romney said it was fine for gay couples to raise a family.

At question is the redefinition of marriage. Redefinition is on the table.

If the institution of marriage is for raising a family

And Romney believes it is fine for gay couples to raise a family.

It logically follows that Romney should support gay marriage.

Maybe now the point is more clear, since it was evident from your response that it was not.

#17 Hold on Matheus*

There is a great deal of difference between two men raising children and "gay marriage". There are many different kinds of families in our society for a number of reasons. Grandparents raising their grand children is currently rising rapidly. Young people are simple abandoning their kids. There are even strangers raising kids, they are called foster parents. Two brothers or two sisters raising their siblings because their parents died.

You have to be very careful when talking about definition of "family". The family and "marriage" are two different subjects. Children who are reared by people other than their parents but relatives or friends of the family have shown a much healthier environment for children than foster care for the simple reason that ties are stronger than the elements of wealth or political correctness.

There have been gay couples adopting children and many seem to do well but not a great percentage. But you cannot easily define family when we have so many different situations in our society and the different cultures to make a blanket statement. I believe this is what Romney was eluding to in his references to same sex couples raising children. It is already a part of our society, not for healthy reasons of course, but it does exist.

Child neglect, abandonment, imprisoned parents, car accidents, divorce, soldiers that didnt come home, are all a part of the real world of children. The ideal of course is a man and woman who are husband and wife having children or adopting is the healthiest for rearing children. Ideals only occur in the classroom, never in the real world. Gay couples and heterosexuals have basically the same percentage of "divorces" however, gays tend to have more "partners" than heterosexuals. Thus gays who have children and "divorce", the children suffer the same disorder in their lives as children of heterosexual parents.

The issues of gay marriage and gays raising children are two very different subjects which to me clearly explains Romney's responses to the two questions. Both issues of gay marriage and gay couples raising children are very complex issues when adding the "child" component.

And before you ask, I was a social worker in Child Protective Services for 30 years.

#18 Hello again

I am just using the "religious right" argument. Candidates do speak on things that already exist. Abortion exists in this country, but it doesn't stop candidates from stating whether or not they are "pro-life" or "pro-abortion". So Romney should likewise be able to state clearly whether or not he is "pro-gay adoption" or "against-gay adoption", without having to resort to a "well, it already exists" argument.

Maybe I should illustrate my point better, since my use of the word "family" has now gone off on a tangent into different types of families other than the nuclear family. A man and a woman reproduce and have a child. Two men or two women procure a child. Romney thinks this is fine. You have now redefined the nuclear family to include "my two daddys" or "my two mommys". You've now redefined the nuclear family, but the institution created for the stabilization of that nuclear family is restricted to the heterosexual variety, which is an illogical position to take. You can't believe in a homosexual nuclear family and then say that the institute created for stabilizing that family will be denied. It just won't stand.

A religious conservative would be against gay adoption and against gay marriage.

What will happen is that you will now have a disparity, children of gays will not be protected under marriage, but children of straights will be. And the U.S.A. abhors disparity in equality.

#19 Rough life, eh Mattheus? ---

That ad hominem stuff is vicious, ain't it?

Especially when delivered through an electronic medium.

The pain must be excruciating.

Heh.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#20 Hardly

There is no pain when someone says that I am stupid. It just shows that I've won an argument, which believe me is the opposite of excruciating pain.

#21 If there is no pain, Mattheus, why do you ---

make an issue of the subject of name calling?

Oh, that's right - if you insist that you win when an opponent calls you a name - it must be so.

You may be the first person in history to never have lost an argument just because you say so.

MOST impressive, that.

On the other hand, if the phrasing you label "name calling", is accurate; then your win record will be nothing more than a fig-mation of your imag-i-ment.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#22 melveen or melvinger or is it now Mattheus.

Whatever he calls himself, he is quite stupid.

Oh Stupid Mattheus. Hello.

Stupid Mattheus: Romney doesn't support gay marriage, but supports adoption by gays. So, he supports gay people raising children and creating families....   So, by logic... It is probably the best argument against Romney...

1. Single people are by law allowed to adopt in many if not all states, Stupid Mattheus.

2. Gays are not allowed to marry therefore they are........ wait........ wait........ wait for it...... wait...... SINGLE.

3. Since Gays are single, see point 1.

4. There is no logical inconsistency in Governor Romney's point.

Seriously, you are quite dense, are you not? Only an idiot thinks that is the best argument. Idiot.

#23 Not melveen or melvinger

I thought the military taught people basic manners. That was always my experience with military men. Calling me stupid and idiot says a lot more about your character than it does mine.

Your logic suffers from some flaws

1). Single people are by law allowed to adopt in many if not all states.

There is a difference between a single individual and a status of single as it relates to marriage. In the history of same-sex adoption, there have been prohibitions against same-sex couples but oddly enough, not same-sex individuals. Thus states made a distinction between gay couples and gay individuals. The state has also made distinctions between heterosexual individuals and homosexual individuals. So it is not all "single" people as you state it.

2). Gays are not allowed to marry, and are therefore single.

Again, for the purposes of adoption, two gay people are not single, but a couple.

Therefore, your argument falls apart. But that's just the sheer logic.

Further, just because something is a law, doesn't mean that Romney gets a free pass. Abortion is law too, but politicans still make stands about it today.

So again, if you feel that a gay couple should be allowed to adopt children, but not be allowed to marry, it is an illogical position to take.

#24 Up yours sideways idiot.

I ain't here to be your buddy. You are an idiot, I call you one.

I said singles by law can adopt in nearly every state of the union. You too stupid to comprehend that, not my problem idiot. I said that since gay people can't check off the married box on a form, they are BY LAW single and free to adopt in every state in the union. You too stupid to comprehend that, not my problem idiot.

I then stated there is no logical inconsistancy with that and Governor Romney's point. You too stupid to comprehend that, not my problem idiot.

Now. Let's see what the Governor actually says ----

Romney told anchor Paul Cameron, "Well actually I think all states but one allow gay adoption, so that's a position which has been decided by most of the state legislators, including the one in my state some time ago. So I simply acknowledge the fact that gay adoption is legal in all states but one."

The Governor simply acknowledges gay adoption is legal. So your entire basis in posting here was a stupid waste of everyone's time. You too stupid to comprehend that, not my problem idiot.

#25 The Vet

You don't have to be my buddy. I just thought that the military had instilled some sense of honor and dignity. There are many children that could teach you some basic manners. I thought maybe "The Vet" stood for "The Veteran", for which I could show my respect, but maybe it just means "The Veterinarian". So my apologizes if you are really a veterinarian.

Does something sink into your brain if I repeatedly call you idiot or stupid? Let me know and I will gladly oblige.

1). As I said for ADOPTION, the STATE considers INDIVIDUALS and COUPLES. There are HETEROSEXUAL INDIVIDUALS and there are HOMOSEXUAL INDIVIDUALS. There are HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES and HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES. There is NO SUCH THING AS "SINGLE" when it comes to ADOPTION. If you don't believe me, look it up!

2). STATES distinguish between HETEROSEXUAL INDIVIDUALS, HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES, HOMOSEXUAL INDIVIDUALS, and HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES. Not every state allows HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES or INDIVIDUALS to adopt.

THEREFORE, YOU ARE WRONG REGARDING YOUR DEFINITION OF "SINGLE" for ADOPTION.

Again, if gay couples are allowed to have children, it doesn't make sense to support gay marriage. If you don't understand why, look it up.

Regarding the quote of Romney, that was the "walk back" after he had said:

He said on Thursday: "And if two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship, or even to adopt a child -- in my state individuals of the same sex were able to adopt children. In my view, that's something that people have a right to do. But to call that marriage is something that in my view is a departure from the real meaning of that word."

Your quote of Romney was him weaseling out of a position. That is hardly a strong position to simply acknowledge that something exists without taking a firm moral stance on it.

So yeah.. your argument has been utterly destroyed. If you have nothing better for me than calling me idiot and rehashing your tired and wrong argument that I have already shown was nonsense, don't waste your time or mine.

#26 Holy cow

If you could just see how stupid you look right now.

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

#27 Good morning Boudin

It's not all his fault, he's a homosexual analist and it was cold under that rock last night.

 

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

#28 Im sure,

: ]

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

#29 Oh the irony

I am the one defending traditional Christian morality, and you are calling me a homosexual analist. Must be that conservative logic, the one that says we must support Romney at all costs!

#30 Conservative christian morality??????

You desperately need a dictionary and several visits with Doc Sam.

 

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

#31 Read my "Good Christian Response"? post

That will explain that conservative christian morality is generally against gay parenting, which Romney supports. How does one reconcile voting for a candidate who openly supports gay parenting and being a Christian? Curious.

#32 You and your liberal comrades

You and your liberal comrades want to define christianity, marriage, truth, patriotism, etc, etc,etc.

I'm sticking with the moral absolutes given us by God and with the age old definitions. Go enjoy your hope and change while you can.

 

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

#33 Your post

1+1=3-1=5+6=10
Translation - Marrheus=0

 

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

#34 Victory!

melveen or melvinger or mattheus is winz! How do we know the troll won? Trollie sez so, that is how. Trollies love declaring victory.

Moe Lane's rules for dealing with trolls.

•Be vicious to trolls. It’s not like you’re depriving anybody of food or oxygen.
•Be capricious. If you’re consistent, they’ll know where the line is; if they know where the line is, they’ll skate to the edge of it.
•Be indifferent to trollish suffering. Being called a facist (not a typo: most trolls can’t spell) who’s suppressing free speech* is not a cause for concern; it’s semantically equivalent to “You’re doing your job.”
•Be obnoxious. Trolls do it because it amuses them to do it. Being made fun of is not amusing, particularly when you can enforce a ban. Remember: they need your site more than your site needs them.

Oh victory declaring troll. I, and others here call you stupid because you are quite stupid. And we will continue to call you stupid as long as you continue to stupidly post. You don't like it on the interlashings, get off.

#35 Victory declaring troll

It's bad, I know but when I give facts and logic, and the opposition just as name-calling and errors, I feel that if they can't argue from the basic logic, I have to hand hold them and let them know when I've refuted their argument. There are some people that I don't have to do that to, but it's people that can discern arguments.

Interestingly enough, did you read the article that you quoted from? It seems I am not the only person that thinks that Romney's position was inconsistent:

But then on Friday, he was asked, in an interview with CBS' WBTV in Charlotte, N.C., how his opposition to same-sex marriage "squared" with his support for gay adoptions. Romney told anchor Paul Cameron, "Well actually I think all states but one allow gay adoption, so that's a position which has been decided by most of the state legislators, including the one in my state some time ago. So I simply acknowledge the fact that gay adoption is legal in all states but one."

So, you see, it was recognized that gee, his opposition to same-sex marriage doesn't "square" with his support for gay adoptions. Funny, Romney, didn't give your argument with how his position is consistent. I wonder why. He just weaseled out.

#36 Wait.

Were we supposed to care that you were still carrying on repeating the same stupid drivel? Do you think we are paid by the word to read your long repititious Stupid?

Shut up melveen or melvinger or mattooneus. Or pop off and get yourself banned again. We really really really don't care anymore.

#37 You're funny Matthewdean

Matthewdean,

I am traditionally minded, so with that I try to bring a gentlemenly manner into these posts. Pointing out when someone makes an "ad hominem" attack is good debating, and hopefully, it helps the other person realize that they are not making a valid argument by doing so. And it is just bad form.

So when I make a valid argument, and someone replies that I can't comprehend, or that I have a bad teacher, it doesn't address the point, and says more about the character of the person making such a statement.

Anytime you have made a comment to me, it as always been in the snarkiest of tones. This sort of snarkiness smacks of a more liberal spirit, as you can see in the comedians of Bill Maher, Kathy Griffin, and Rosie O'Donnell. They also lack a basic civility.

I am curious to know what your conservative philosophies are. I am assuming that they don't fall under social conservatism, since twice I have laid down socially conservative positions, and twice you have felt the need to make snarky comments.

#38 Mattheus ---

Traditionally minded?
So you say.

'Gentlemenly' manner (more than one of you, eh) ?
So you say.

The last sentence of your first paragraph states "And it is just bad form".   It is bad form to be traditionally minded, to be gentlemenly (sic) minded?
If that was not what you meant, then you are guilty of piss poor paragraph construction.

"So when I make a valid argument ---"
So you say.

"--and says more about the character of the person making such a statement."
So you say.   When doc sam herman makes a diagnosis reference character, I'll pay attention.  For your part, though, don't bother.

My giving you snark has nothing to do with spirit - liberal or otherwise -I do so because I neither like you nor respect you.

Regarding "basic" civility --- that would be where I ask you nicely to osculate my buttocks, rather than stating peremptorily, 'Kiss My Ass".

As far as your curiosity relative what my conservative inclinations might be, Ma-toos; curiosity killed the cat - and satisfaction did not bring him back; he was still dead.

That is a basically civil way to say that my philosophies are my business; and that if you keep putting your proboscis into it, and / or continue with your mealy-mouthed posting silliness, I shall continue to tweak said anatomical protuberance - with snark; with a spark; or as a lark.

Ask, and ye shall receive.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#39 Thank you

I appreciate that while you say you don't like me, you are considerate enough to correct my spelling error. I will strive to do better in the future. I will also be more careful, and try not to create sentence fragments such as "And it is just bad form." Of course, the conjunction, "and" would connect the thought that was immediately preceded it, thus it could not have meant that it was bad form to be traditionally minded, or gentlemanly.

It was George Washington who had written in his "Rules of Civility":

49th Use no Reproachfull Language against any one neither Curse nor Revile.

So it is not just my diagnosis of your character, the Father of Our Country makes that same diagnosis. Perhaps it may interest you to improve your character to the standards set by one of the Founding Fathers.

#40 You need professional help

You need professional help

 

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

#41 At least now we agree on something

That is true. I appreciate your concern for my well being.

#42 You just can't seem to help it, Mattheus ---

Note the following bold:

"Of course, the conjunction, "and" would connect the thought that was immediately preceded it, thus it could not have meant that it was bad form to be traditionally minded, or gentlemanly."

Try this:

"--the thought that had immediately preceded it," --

- or -

" -- the thought that was immediately preceded by it --"

The average person doesn't spell all that well, and neither correct sentence structure nor proper paragraph formation is a matter of life or death; but if you plan on talking the talk, you had best learn to walk the walk - or wisenheimers like myself will take the inevitable, justified, potshots.  If English is not your native tongue, then I retract any of the previous animadversions.

The fact you have enlisted the clinical expertise and voluminous experience of George Washington, as a tour guide, in wending your way through the intricacies of my character and the maze of my psyche, is most impressive.

Do you also use a Ouija Board as part of your act?

MD

 

 

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#43 MD, this reincarnation of Hank Mud is a waste

of time and effort. He thinks that Maher, O'Donnell and Kathy Griffin are "comedians". What more needs to be said?

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.

#44 UpNorth ---

great comparison; I should have caught that.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#45 Matt

It doesn't matter what purposes you wish to assign to marriage the definition is one man one woman. Why should we redefine marriage just because the degenerate three percent of the population wants it redefined?
You don't know anything so your stupid teacher didn't teach you anything. It probably wasn't her fault because you have no comprehension of reality.

 

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

#46 The "Good Christian" Response?

I am assuming from your tagline that you are a religious Christian. I am curious as to what type of Christian, since "Christian" is a label that unfortunately, doesn't mean anything anymore. Jesus had one set of teachings, yet Christians have so many. Odd situation for followers of Jesus.

I hope that refering to my "stupid teacher" and saying that I have "no comprehension of reality" aren't your missionary skills. If you think I have no comprehension of reality, why are you not trying to enlighten me? The Bible says, all have sinned, and all fall short of the glory of God. Is this vitriol reserved for "the degenerate 3 percent", or do you have this vitriol for the "degenerate fornicators", "degenerate adulterers", "the degenerate killers of babies in the womb". I'm just curious.

The irony of this whole thing is that if you read my post, I am only pointing out Romney's inconsistency, I am not coming out in support of gay marriage. Does a "good Christian" support a candidate that is okay with gay people raising children? Don't children have a right to a mother and father?

Maybe you will go with the "lesser of two evils" argument. Bush was the "lesser of two evils" too, between Bush and Kerry. Bush was the "moral choice". And who did Bush help to usher in? Obama! So much for the "lesser of two evils".

#47 My tag line is the summation of christianity.

If you have an understanding of reality why don'i you show it? When I vote for Romney it will be as president of the US, not the pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury. "Religious" leaders were the ones that crucified Jesus. Are you that type of "religious" person?

Sin is sin but there is forgiveness for all who seek it. Your posts are designed to confuse and mislead. Your hero Obama was ushered in by you and other liberal leaning, bush hating know-it-alls. You have your hope and change but you're still not happy. Keep doing the devil's work and maybe you'll get to meet him face to face along with your hero and enjoy their company for all eternity.

 

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

#48 The devil's work

I thought the devil's work was knowingly putting someone in office who supports gay adoption. That is really doing the devil's work, you are basically voting to give him power to strengthen the devil's agenda. It's a bit hypocritical: you wouldn't vote for Obama as "president of the US, not the pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury". You won't give Obama that pass? Why is that?

You don't have to vote for anybody. You can realize that voting for Obama is wrong and voting for Romney is wrong.

#49 You are very good at being obtuse

You are working to re-elect an evil man dedicated to the destruction of America. Obama might make a good imam since he is far, far, far from being a christian. Obama voted to murder babies that survived abortion.
It's daylight now so maybe you should get back under your rock.

 

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

#50 Bush as the lesser of two evils?

"Maybe you will go with the "lesser of two evils" argument. Bush was the "lesser of two evils" too, between Bush and Kerry. Bush was the "moral choice". And who did Bush help to usher in? Obama! So much for the "lesser of two evils"."

1) In his second term, W got Roberts and Alito onto the Supreme Court. Both moves are in the right direction as far as pro-lifers are concerned.

2) Had Kerry been elected in 2004, I seriously doubt the economy would have been better. Certainly, liberal judges would have been appointed in place of Roberts and Alito.

"Unfortunately, some people use belief-based facts rather than fact-based beliefs." -Par for the Course on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 5:38pm

#51 Matheus*

You are attacking my comment on issues I did not bring out. Once again, the traditional definition of family is how the majority of Americans live and strive to achieve. That traditional family has shown to be the most healthy environment though of course with some failures. In the real world , there are circumstances that cause many variations from that tradition. I am not arguing Christian values, or legal issues. My point was, and still is, that Romney was responding to reality not ideology.

Abortion is legal, do many of us oppose? Yes. Can we prevent abortion from occurring? NO.Same thing with war, same sex marriage, gay adoptions, illegal immigrants...on and on. There will always be ideological disagreements on issues. To me, the problem with our politics and society today, is that political agendas are more relevant than actually addressing the various issues and finding solutions to many of our problems.

Instead of focusing on Romney and Obama's stance on gay marriage, why are they not addressing solutions to our differences, address our problems with realistic steps designed to unite and not continuoously divide. Just as you are trying to do.

#52 Wow, thank you for pointing out the obvious,

Capt. Obvious. Now, let's delve further into your definition, or is it a "redefinition"? The issue of adoption is a state issue, so really, what difference does it make what Romney's position on it is?
Marriage is a state issue, and everywhere that marriage that would unite you with your favorite guy/gal/pet has been put to the voters, it's lost. Again, why would Romney's position on it matter?
Maybe now the point is more clear, because, so far, you've shown that you don't have a clue. So head on over to the clues closet and try to find one.

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.

#53 False premise

You want us to change the definition of marriage (a man AND a woman, no substitutions allowed) to accommodate the desires of a deviant lifestyle. Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman since the beginning of mankind.

 

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

#54 definition of marriage

I read through the link I provided above and it gave some interesting insights.
http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-evolution-of-divorce

It says that in the last 40 or so years, since the advent of no-fault divorce and the sexual revolution, the 'definition' of marriage has changed. It says that before, marriage was commonly thought of as a self-sacrifing committment oriented towards the raising of kids. After no-fault divorce and the sexual revolution, it became more common to think of marriage in terms of personal satisfaction instead of personal sacrifice. I put definition in quotes earlier to acknowledge that throughout this time, marriage was sstill defined as a union between one man and one woman. My use of the word in quotes refers to its perceived purpose.

So, if the purpose of marriage is merely for personal fulfillment as the highest priority with children a lower priority, then it follows logically that any relativistic notion of personal fulfillment must be accommodated by redefining marriage.

In that light, we social conservatives must show the fallacies of thinking of marriage purely in terms of subjective 'personal fulfillment'. To me, that means communicating a return to the link between marriage, sex, and kids as a package deal.

"Unfortunately, some people use belief-based facts rather than fact-based beliefs." -Par for the Course on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 5:38pm

#55 I concur!

I think that, de facto, we as a country believe in this notion of personal fulfillment over creation when it comes to marriage. And with that logic, homosexual couples become "superior" to heterosexual couples. That is because if personal fulfillment is the main purpose, with procreation only a secondary purpose, then only homosexual couples "naturally" correspond to this rearrangement. With homosexual couples, every child is a wanted child, there are no accidents. It is "planned parenthood" in the extreme.

But with heterosexual couples, it gets messy. They have to frustrate procreation with birth control and abortions. Heterosexuals are getting divorced, fornicating, having abortions -- you don't hear much censure of these sexually immoral activites.

So yes, communicating the link between marriage, sex, and children as a package deal is important, but I am not even sure many social conservatives are prepared for that.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.