Why Republicans Are Saying ‘I Do’ to Gay Marriage

Over the past six months, dozens of leading GOP operatives and politicians have listened to public opinion and decided their 2012 platform is, indeed, "moss-covered"

  • Share
  • Read Later
Drew Angerer / Getty Images

Senator Rob Portman speaks with reporters on Capitol Hill on Dec. 20, 2012, in Washington

Will the next Republican nominee for President support gay marriage? It is a question that was unthinkable years ago, but amid a rapid shift in public opinion and demographics, it is being seriously considered in GOP circles.

“At the rate this issue is changing within the party, I think it’s not out of the question,” said Margaret Hoover, a former George W. Bush White House aide and one of the leading Republican Party operatives calling for the recognition of same-sex marriages. “It’s not if, it’s when — 2016 or 2020,” said another Republican operative.

The confidence to even ask the question is buoyed by a sea change in Republican Party thinking on the issue over the past several weeks. Dozens of top party operatives and former politicians — including six former aides to Mitt Romney and seven current or former members of Congress — have signed onto an amicus brief supporting the legal challenge to California’s Proposition 8 in advance of oral arguments on the constitutionality of the gay-marriage ban. Ohio Senator Rob Portman endorsed gay marriage on Friday after revealing that his son is gay. And new polling has brought to light a clear shift in the opinions of Republicans and the nation at large.

Indeed, that was one of the key recommendations in the Republican Party’s 2012 autopsy: a critical need to soften the party’s position on gay marriage, which has become a threshold issue for many young voters.

On Monday, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus supported Portman’s decision to change his mind on gay marriage when asked how the party will try to reach out to gays and young voters into the fold, saying it was no different than embracing the so-called Liberty movement championed by Senator Rand Paul. “I think Senator Portman made some pretty big inroads last week,” Priebus told reporters. “I think it’s about being decent. I think it’s about dignity and respect, that nobody deserves to have their dignity diminished, or people don’t deserve to be disrespected. I think that there isn’t anyone in this room — Republican, Democrat, in the middle — that doesn’t think that Rob Portman, for example, is a good, conservative Republican. He is. And we know that.”

That comes barely six months since the party ratified its 2012 platform at the Republican Convention including a reaffirmation of its call for a marriage amendment to the Constitution and a defense of the Boy Scouts of America for banning gay scouts and troop leaders. “We applaud the citizens of the majority of states which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns under way in several other states to do so,” the platform states. “We condemn the hate campaigns, threats of violence, and vandalism by proponents of same-sex marriage against advocates of traditional marriage and call for a federal investigation in to attempts to deny religious believers their civil rights.”

“Our report speaks for one direction for the future of the party,” said Ari Fleischer, Bush’s press secretary and an author of the RNC review of the 2012 election. “When they gather to write the next platform, they are hopefully going to take into account what we’re saying [and change].”

But evangelical opponents of same-sex marriage are predicting a swift and powerful backlash against the establishment driving the moderation.

“Obviously, this RNC report was designed to pander to the GOP’s wealthy elites, the same ones who encouraged Mitt Romney to ‘tone down his social-issues talk,’” Family Research Council president Tony Perkins said in an e-mail to supporters. “Unfortunately for them, money doesn’t decide elections; people do. And the vast majority of the GOP base believes that marriage is a non-negotiable plank of the national platform.”

“I think it’s a media-generated narrative a week before the Supreme Court hears the case because the media tends to agree that same-sex marriage should be a constitutional right,” said Thomas Peters, communications director for the National Organization for Marriage. “There has been no change. Republicans who come out for gay marriage get a big check from [the pro-gay-marriage Republican donor] Paul Singer, a couple of weeks of news cycles, and then you quietly get destroyed in primaries.”

But an ABC News/Washington Post poll released this week found that 52% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independent voters ages 18 to 49 back gay marriage — the highest percentage ever recorded — with 81% of 18- to 29-year-olds supporting overall.

Alex Lundry, the director of data science for Romney’s campaign and a signatory to the amicus brief, described the past several weeks as a “pivotal moment” for the Republican Party on the issue, highlighting growth in a 24% increase in support among white evangelical Protestants and a 23% increase in self-identified conservatives over the past nine years.

“Evangelical millennials are 64% in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry,” he said. “This idea that there’s going to be a grassroots surge in opposition to establishment republicans who are coming out for this is hyperbolic. They’re moving, everyone’s moving.”

At the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference — to which Republican gay-marriage-supporting groups like GOProud were formally not invited — a panel urging moderation on the issue packed a small conference room. The organization’s executive director Jimmy LaSalvia told the assembled audience that the party needs to accept LGBT Americans if it wants to stop hemorrhaging young voters. “There are a few in our movement who just don’t like gay people, and in 2013 that’s just not O.K. anymore,” he said. “If we don’t publicly stand up to the bigots, then everyone assumes we agree with them … How can we expect [young voters] to listen if they think that conservatives hate their families and friends.”

The drumbeat of gay-marriage supporters within the Republican Party stands in contrast to their silence nationally on the issue during the 2012 election cycle, when they focused their efforts on the handful of states with ballot initiatives or amendments on the issue up for consideration. Advocates say they were fearful that forcing the issue would give more ammunition to Democrats to brand the Republican Party as out of touch in the form of social conservative denouncements.

And for the establishment Republicans who support gay marriage, the election reinforced their desire to push the party to moderate. “We were trying to have an election about the economy, and [to have this conversation within the party] would have been a distraction,” said David Kochel, an Iowa-based Romney adviser and one of many in the party establishment who have called for an embrace of same-sex marriages. “But that said, Obama wasn’t running a race about the economy. He was just killing us with this once he came out for same-sex marriage.”

“We all have been called bigots and homophobes because of the R next to our names, but we’re just not in a position to set policy yet,” said one swing-state operative who is supportive of gay marriage but won’t speak out publicly for professional reasons. “We’re the ‘elephants in the closet.’”

Even a casual survey finds that the vast majority of the Republican establishment under the age of 40 — the professional communicators, strategists and policy wonks — are all quietly supportive of same-sex marriage.

And while some of the “elephants” are coming out — Brad Dayspring, communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee and a former aide to House majority leader Eric Cantor, publicly voiced his opposition to bans on gay marriage after the Portman announcement — it’s equally true that Republican candidates and elected officials have been slower to move on the issue than the people who work for them.

But a growing caucus of Republican operatives isn’t so sure, pointing to demographic trends. “I don’t think we need to see Republican elected officials pull a Portman and change their minds,” said one operative. “I think you will see less of an effort to talk about marriage, less of a need to push legislative actions on the floor, more tolerance for differing opinions on the issue. In the long term, Gen Y and millennial Republican candidates are going to be for it.”

And can a Republican in support of gay marriage win the notoriously conservative Iowa caucuses? “Absolutely they can — assuming they have the right conservative message,” Kochel, who ran Romney’s campaign in the state, said, pointing to the growth of the libertarian movement in the state.

404 comments
Thetruthteller
Thetruthteller

Well, it's been a full day since DroopySayenough aka DeweySayenoff (downthread), poster girl for lesbianism, had her hissy fit at my passionate defense of heterosexuality.  I posed my challenge and she chickened out. Figures. Spinelessness characterizes that demographic. So, as a showpiece for gayness, Droopy/Dewey succeeds admirably. 

But it doesn't stop there. In her clumsy and raucous apologetic for homosexuality, the mule fell victim to hoof-in-mouth-disease. She gave us all a foretaste of the gay jackboot with her shrill charge that anyone who dares express any view contrary to her "orientation" is, of necessity, of like coloration, to wit, You disagree with me? YOU'RE GAY! You hate me? YOU'RE SO GAY! You fear me? HA! YOU'RE IRREFUTABLY GAY, GAY, GAAAAYY!! (Shriek) What a bubblehead buffoon, old Droopy/Dewey. But do not underestimate the arrogance that underlies the attitude, folks. Such nonsense might seem ridiculous but is spewed forth in deadly earnest. It's juuusst a matter of tiiimme...

HOWEVER, most damaging to her clique's position are the most expressive terms in which she expatiated on the grand theory that WE'RE ALL SO GAY because we oppose what she stands for. Let's try a little substitution exercise, shall we, with the analogy most cited by homosexuals to boost the rationality of their movement: the civil rights struggle of the 60's (or even emancipation). This is routinely held up by homosexuals as incontrovertible confirmation that their movement's underpinnings and ultimate fate are parallel with the former. Race is innate, immutable and so, they say, is the homosexual orientation. Race is an amoral characteristic of a person and, so they say, is h.o. Race is immaterial for equality and so, they say, is h.o.! Let's agree wholeheartedly.

And Droopy/Dewey was kind enoff to provide us with a semantic framework for confirming and elaborating on this parallelism; in her own words:  "A true fact is that often times - more often than most people realize, that hate you feel toward (blacks) and the rejection of everything about it is simply a person who has been indoctrinated into an intolerant, hateful faith living in stark terror of their strong and continuing (identification) toward members of  (another race).  Because someone who is NOT in denial can EASILY see the inequity denying civil rights to others based on (race).  So they decry (equal rights for blacks) because they know that if it was legal and sanctioned by government, they'd give into the temptation they live with every day." 

Which temptation, old girl? For hypocritical heteros, its doing the nasty with those of their own sex; in the substitution, it's whites trying, by hook or by crook, to be black. The consequences of ignoring this subconscious yearning by whites, says Droopy/Dewey, are dire: "After all, your denial of your own (blackness) is not only hurting you, it's hurting your family and likely cutting your life short." So, kid, either the whole analogy thing is a bucketful of wishful thinking, or the place was and is crawling with white people wanting to be black. Thanks, you would-be demagogue, for exposing a little bit more of the hopeless inanity that is homosexuality's reason-for being. For heterosexuals, a nice gesture on the part of poor, clueless Droopy/Dewey.

Especially when one considers that a gay person wrote it.





Hadrewsky
Hadrewsky

The young people in the world today rightly consider faith garbage... at the very least the is a trend for the younger to claim to be ireigious.

The point is that as the aging population dies away so does their fair tale faiths in the civilized world.

The Muslim would might live on awhile before their young people catch on.... but then again the midle east is generally a 3rd world garbage pit complely governed by a poorly wrriten book by a man who enjoyed screwing young teenage women.

Hadrewsky
Hadrewsky

Worth being Said Again-


The bible is a book of cobbled together stories Stolen from earlier religions so that it would be easier to indoctrinate new sheep into the flock... and sheep they are.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is older than the bible and if you were to read it you would notice that the so called Holy Bible has ripped off portions of it including a Great Flood and a Savior that was a carpenter... The Zoroastrians gave you even more material the plagiarize into the bible.

What you have is a Bronze Age book of fairy tales that is as Holy as Readers Digest or a roll of Toilet Paper... Nothing More.


BrandonCardet
BrandonCardet

“%s: Why Republicans are saying ‘I do’ to gay marriage | %sYKE (v%sand%sity

tpaine
tpaine

Who cares?  We have much bigger fish to fry - an economy still headed south.  Unemployment and food stamps records.  Record national debt.

Not going to be in platform EVER and no GOP Presidential candidate endorsing this unhealthy and unnatural lifestyle will ever make it through the primaries.  Nice bit of wishful thinking though.

domiromi1964
domiromi1964

@TIME I'm a Republican and gays being able to marry the one they love is the LEAST of this country's problems.

Adam_Reza
Adam_Reza

@syahirahsj Shame they can't bulge on taxes and social welfare progammes. Slaves to the opinions of the minority elites.

Leyaquette
Leyaquette

@TIME @TIMESwampland: Sir, thz Repubs R ditzy dolts, selfish mongers, meany dastards & have 0 moral values but only low caste vote hawkers?

pablocher
pablocher

@TIME: Why Republicans are saying ‘I do’ to gay marriage | ti.me\/15zOxqPMjR” la droit franchise devrais aussi peut être évoluer?

arvinR99
arvinR99

.@TIME Cant have kids I say, go for it get married!

DeweySayenoff
DeweySayenoff

The GOP will say anything that gets them into power, but until they start introducing legislation that revokes the exclusions of gay marriage civil rights (like Prop 8), it's just their usual lip service.

They've been lying to their supporters for decades, but those ignorant clowns didn't notice them while their attention was on the smokescreen BS the GOP put out to distract them away from the fact that the GOP was robbing them blind, giving their money to the wealthy.

Well, it's easy to cheat the faithful.  Just tell them you believe what they believe and they'll follow you anywhere.  Con artists have been doing this for as long as religion has been around.  Some of them are even part of the congregation, but most of them lead it.

So while the self-righteous egocentrics decry homosexuality as a sin, they forget that you can't deny people the same civil rights because of their, or your, religion in THIS country.  Iran and the Middle East, sure.  Just remember, folks, the only way that gay marriages can affect you or anyone else in ANY WAY is because you, or they, are gay to begin with..  A true fact is that often times - more often than most people realize, that hate you feel toward gays and the rejection of everything about it is simply a person who has been indoctrinated into an intolerant, hateful faith living in stark terror of their strong and continuing sexual feelings toward members of  the same gender.  Because someone who is NOT in denial can EASILY see the inequity denying civil rights to others based on gender.  So they decry gay marriage because they know that if it was legal and sanctioned by government, they'd give into the temptation they live with every day.

Sleep well.

Thetruthteller
Thetruthteller

Yaawwn! It's late and everybody's gotta be tired, but I'll leave just this one parting shot for heterosexuality (of which, according to the stats, belong the vast majority of the pop. The homosexual community, on the other hand, make a level of noise that is far out of proportion to their reduced numbers. And are you, straight man or woman, helping to up the volume on that boom box? It may come back to haunt you, and I'll tell you how in due time.). But here goes, plagiarizing from a comment I saw on another forum, posted by a kindred soul:

"I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our public morality, to ride out the storm of deviance, and to outlive the menace of homosexuality, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.

Even though large tracts of America and many old and famous Institutions have fallen or may fall into the grip of the GAYS and all the odious apparatus of political correctness, we shall not flag or fail.

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in the marketplace of ideas,
we shall fight in the courts and government lobbies,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength on the airwaves, we shall defend our families, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight in the fast food industry,
we shall fight in the shopping centers,
we shall fight in the film industry and in sports,
we shall fight in the schools;
we shall never surrender..!"

Australo Pithecus 

mrbomb13
mrbomb13

Nice try, TIME Magazine, but the vast majority of Republicans are not, "saying 'yes' to gay marriage."  Keep dreaming.

timevicente
timevicente

True marriage is not an institution legislated by any government. It predated any government. It is of divine origin. Even the uncivilized tribes recognize its worth.  It is not subject to popularity votes.  And its pure, unblemished definition is that of a lawful or community-approved union of a man and a woman for the expression of heterosexual love and for begetting children.

Any government has no constitutional right in dipping its finger and redefining marriage to include gay marriage. Either traditional marriage is a constitutionally-recognized social institution or it is not. Since it is the former, any government is wrong to alter what is inherent and universally accepted in human societies.

The argument for traditional marriage is for the lawful perpetuation of the human species.  In contrast, in its full sway, gay marriage will depopulate the earth IN JUST ONE GENERATION.  In the judgment of an all-knowing God, by their sodomy, Sodom and Gomorrah had lost their justification for existing, and God destroyed these two cities by fire and brimstone.  Since many honest Americans still believe in Bible, let them search the book, particularly, Genesis 19: 1-25. Jesus attested to the two cities'  destruction.

The gays should be allowed to love and live together - the society owes them as much - but to legislate gay marriage is to redefine the pure, exalting, traditional marriage which is an institution beyond the ambit of government authority.

Rights and privileges like social security, access to the armed forces, government, and business enclaves, etc. can be legislated for the gays.  A kind of legal union, short of marriage, may even be lawfully instituted that will tackle future estate distribution and other ticklish issues, but the purity of traditional marriage must remain untarnished by human hands.  As with His wrath with Sodom and Gomorrah, Deity will make his utter displeasure gradually and inexorably felt in a nation that has professed Jesus Christ to be her God.


Piacevole
Piacevole

@Hadrewsky There is no particular point in getting people's backs up on the subject of religion.  Once their hackles are up, people tend not to hear anything else that might be said.

There are good points and bad points in any religious belief.  Some people get a lot of comfort from their beliefs, and in a way, the objective reality of their stories is beside the point.  I think it's fair to expect them to adhere to their beliefs in their actions, (and sometimes they do, sometimes they don't) but hardly any of is is totally rational or totally consistent.

Piacevole
Piacevole

@tpaine I suppose it's always possible that the Log Cabin Republicans will just give up and become Frame House Democrats.

Piacevole
Piacevole

@domiromi1964 @TIME For you, perhaps.  But to the people involved it's quite a big deal. 

tpaine
tpaine

I don't "hate" anyone, but I do hate sin that hurts either yourself or others.  You make an assumption that is simply scientifically unproven - that homosexuality is inherited.  Science has been unable to find that link.  In short, it is an unnatural and unhealthy lifestyle and I'm not going to suggest anything different to my children or peers.

Thetruthteller
Thetruthteller

@DeweySayenoff So now it seems I'm fighting the moderators at TIME, too; my replies to DroopySayenough keep getting zapped, and I wasn't even being rude. Now, I'll have to cobble this one from scratch all over again (grumble, grumble), but oh well, a MAN's gotta do what a MAN's gotta do. (Hint, Droops.) 

Anyway,  as I was saying: Well, we ALL live in one big, GAY world, folks. You’re either: 1. an admitted homosexual, 2. a homosexual who’s still cowering in the closet, 3. a heterosexual who thinks the world of homosexuality, 4. a heterosexual who doesn’t know that he/she is actually a homosexual , 5. or a heterosexual who knows but lives IN DENIAL (curtsy  - oops! Freudian slip - meant to say, courtesy, of DroopySayenough). There are NO alternatives. We’d better get used to this gang’s presumptious and peremptory public relations style from now on, for when they come into their own, that is how we will all be dealt with. LOVE US, JOIN US, OR ELSE! And don’t forget to check your freedoms of thought and expression at the door.

I also pointed out that Droopy's assertion that "...the only way that gay marriages can affect you or anyone else in ANY WAY is because you, or they, are gay to begin with", is worth no more than Droopy's old lady's frilly underw3ar (...whistling innocent tune...). That straight people better get used to the notion that, no matter what "loving" homosexual public spectacle intrudes on their sensibilities, they better keep quiet or face thunderous public censure. But more seriously, I want them to consider the effect of the message of fluid orientation on the young, from the cradle. Bullying is bad enough as it is, without increasing the damage wrought by sexual harassment - and worse - by dominant kids who believe themselves to be gay. (Because of gender, kids are far more in private settings with those of their own gender, a worrisome thought henceforth.)

And finally, I am challenging ( I said it more colorfully before, though :( ) DroopySayenough to 'fess up to her proclivities on this forum, like any self-respecting lesbian would. If she doesn't, it's because she knows, JUST KNOWS, that she's leading an UNNATURAL lifestyle and is ASHAMED to say so. Is that an example of gay mettle? Fight me! You coward! We have a pact! Fight! This is not honor. This is not worthy of a proud homosexual! Stand aside, Prince TIME, I'll diss him in front of you, I don't care..! :))



DeweySayenoff
DeweySayenoff

@Thetruthteller -laughs-  You are amusing.  It's sad, though, if one stops to think about it.  You protest far, far too much.  After all, your denial of your own homosexuality is not only hurting you, it's hurting your family and likely cutting your life short.  You are so afraid of your own same gender orientation, that you post this kind of stuff - over the top, hyperbole, impossible to take seriously.  

Especially when one considers that a gay person wrote it.

Hadrewsky
Hadrewsky

@timevicente 

If God hated buttsex so much he smited two cities while laughing at 6 million jews being gassed.... He either does not exist or he is a sick jerk.

Hadrewsky
Hadrewsky

@timevicente 

And your God is a fictional entity that you believe in becauase your parents scrambled your brains.... Your bible has as much authority as the teachings of Zeus or the Baghava Gita.

Your God is a crutch and a superstition that will die as time goes by,

Piacevole
Piacevole

@timevicente There have been many times in human history when, if God intended to interfere, circumstances on this planet would surely have warranted intervention, and it has not happened.

 owes to  its members is equality under law. . . not "separate but equal," which never really IS "equal."

What "society"

Richardlikegolf
Richardlikegolf

@timevicente just because something predates modern society and religious beliefs is not a solid enough argument for or against something. In America you are free to believe and worship as you please and so are people who disagree with you. Siting scripture in your response shows how this is a religious issue. Therefor, I expect the courts to find it unconstitutional to say who someone can and can't marry.

Thetruthteller
Thetruthteller

@timevicente Umm, I kind of see what you're getting at, my friend, and certainly applaud your spirited defense of heterosexual marriage. I also appreciate your diplomatic intent in acknowledging to yourself that homosexuals "should" enjoy various "rights and privileges" - as you put it - and you proceed to list same. You are conciliatory and as egalitarian as possible even within your dogmatic view that homosexuality will accrue for all of us divine retribution for allowing this gangrenous moral dissoluteness in our midst.  

But what can we do? And, for that matter, no citizen can be kept from "love(ing) and liv(ing) together", so it is not something that we straights graciously bestow on anyone. But, do you have any prescriptions for the hetero majority, especially those who have not fallen prey to the politically-correct conditioning that suffuses the discourse at present? I'll tell you what I do. I'm quite aware that on this issue, people's minds are changed more by personal, sentimental motives than rational or even religious ones (take Sen. Portman's case, for example) as I find confirmed by the following source:

"Visibility of gays and lesbians has made part of the difference. When Pew asked people who had changed their minds from anti-same-sex marriage to in favor why they'd shifted their attitudes, the most common response (32 percent) was that they knew someone who was gay and that personal relationship had altered their opinion."

http://news.discovery.com/human/life/gay-marriage-straight-supreme-court-130323.htm

I, therefore, refuse to befriend any openly homosexual person. (And fortunately, there are no identifiable so-inclined in my extended family, on either side, but I would reject them likewise.) Sorry, but that's the truth, Ruth. In my business, which involves providing certain services to the public, I ,of course, do not discriminate against anyone, but I draw the line at accepting any work that would facilitate a same-sex relationship or marriage, etc. And if anybody came through my door with a companion of the same gender and let slip just one expression of unholy affection for said companion, they would be back on the street faster than I'm writing this. 

It is that fraternization with the enemy that dilutes the resolve of many a straight vis-à-vis homosexuality. Keep them at a distance then, I say. Oh, no one deserves to be physically assaulted or slandered for moral deviance any more than we sinners do, and that would make of one a lawbreaker, for that matter. So don't shout slurs or publish untruths nor get physical with anyone. But do not pander to deviance in any way either. So that's MY prescription, vicente... and that's the double truth, Ruth!





Thetruthteller
Thetruthteller

@Piacevole @Thetruthteller Hey, Pia, good morning. Well, it may be lost but you sure have the "fighting" part right. Ain't gonna make it easy for them! But I posted a witty rejoinder for old Droopysayenough last night and it seems to have drifted into the twilight zone. Something about his mother, old "friend" of mine. But the important part was my question to him: ARE YOU A HOMOSEXUAL? 

Well, sun’s pretty high already and still no sign of old Droopy. Guess he didn’t find me that amusing after all. Either that, or he DID ask his mother about me. HA, HA!! Hope he shows up and answers me, though, it’s not polite to keep somebody waiting forever... unless you’re a lady, and so you can get away with it. Guess that includes old Droops... Anyhow, whether DroopySayenough is or is not gay, she’s gotta be a woman, for having kept me waiting so long.

But it’s too bad she “decries” (love that word) my demagoguery (but on the bright side, loves my humor) demagoguery which she claims emanates from a rainbow-colored font. Well, in THAT case, Droops and her ilk should feel pretty good about things, identifying with us and all. Droopy, if you’re listening, how about us making common cause against THOSE OTHER GAYS, since we have so much in common? And even if you just can’t, differences of opinion are accepted in any grouping, right? So while YOUR FACTION speaks for the DYED-IN-THE-WOOL HOMOSEXUALS, ours will CONTINUE giving ‘em ‘ell, how about it? The important thing, of course, is that the LIES from Droopy’s faction be countered with the TRUTH, since we can’t have that in the gay movement, now, can we?

But then we’d have another problem with her. She says my agitating makes her sad. But I’ve got the perfect antidote for that. I’’m gonna mollify her with that wild stuff that amuses her so much about her old lady, and THAT will make everything all right again. So, DroopySayenough, wheeeere aaaare youuu???? :)

Hadrewsky
Hadrewsky

@Piacevole @timevicente 

God seemed to get a kick out of SIX million Jews being gassed, shot, and burned.

God doesnt intervene in anybody's life aside by self delusion

My guess is that the sick jackahole God does not exist.

Piacevole
Piacevole

@Thetruthteller @timevicente I suspect that openly (or closeted) homosexual people will somehow manage to struggle along without your friendship.  It is, after all, not a necessity to happiness.

You may certainly refrain from whatever contact you wish. . . and so may anyone else.


Piacevole
Piacevole

@tpaine @Piacevole In the United States, problem with AIDS was introduced by Patient One, an airline steward of very promiscuous proclivities, and extreme freedom of travel.  He was, all by himself, a sort of perfect storm of a vector.  But in other places, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, the AIDS STD has been spread by heterosexual contact.  It's really much more of a problem there than here, for several reasons.

If anything, the extension of marriage to the gay community really ought to cut down on the incidence of HIV transmission, here in the States.  And there's something else: lesbians, who are exclusively lesbian in their practices, have essentially no problem with it.  And they are homosexual, too.  The problem isn't homosexuality, it's a combination of unsafe sexual practices (not using condoms) and a particularly pernicious STD even worse than syphilis, which is bad enough, but eradicable in the individual.

As for what God knows, I am confident that a deity reputed to have the qualities that God usually is credited with could simply make homosexual behavior an impossibility, if he finds it problematic.  However, I have a hard time guessing why an incorporeal entity would care, one way or the other.  Now, I think God finds it abhorrent for someone to stick his elbow into his own ear, and guess what?  It doesn't seem to be happening.  (g)

None of us claims to be perfect.  But to deny someone else a right that others may enjoy based on religious grounds may not be done in a secular nation, which America is.  Between equal protection and full faith and credit, I suspect it's going to happen.


tpaine
tpaine

@Piacevole @tpaine is the homosexual lifestyle provably unhealthy and unnatural.  If so, historically, it would be defined as a "sin."  Is it worse than debauchery, alcoholism or anything else?  Only God knows.

Am I perfect?  Hardly.

Piacevole
Piacevole

@Thetruthteller @Piacevole How is sexual orientation an issue of morality?  How are homosexuals seeking any sort of "superiority?"  WHY, exactly, is there this assumption that acknowledging that ultimately the differences make no differences will bring on some sort of Gotterdammerung,or something?  All I see is a demonstration of projection: that somehow there is this zero-sum game in which if one group does better, it has to be at the expense of another.  But the changing of society (scientifically, technologically, and culturally) has, in fact, made a better life for more people than we ALL once had.  We really ARE all in this together.

Thetruthteller
Thetruthteller

@Piacevole @Thetruthteller Sure, Pia, I appreciate your candor, respect your intellect. Blacks are my friends, asians are my friends, hispanics are my friends (did I leave out anyone?). Race is one thing. Morality quite another. But it's just a matter of time, you know? Homosexual supremacy and hetero resistance to it and a host of societal ills that will make many of us wish for the "good, old days" when at least we sort-of-knew where we stood. As for me, I am pushing back now. And, as they say in the Caribbean, "who bex, bex". Have a nice day.


Piacevole
Piacevole

@Thetruthteller @Piacevole Do you remember the picture taken during the civil rights era, of the little black girl in pigtails, with her books, being escorted into a school by National Guard soldiers, how tiny and alone and brave she looked? Her guards were armed, trained in fighting.  She was just a little girl.  There was no good reason for her not to be able to go to that school.   Not really.

All there was, between her and that school, was the refusal of the people in charge to recognize what they, on some level, had to know was the truth: that she was a small child of their community, and she should be educated.  On one of these threads, someplace -  I visit several - someone noted that whites had once claimed that blacks were "no more intelligent than farm animals."

But, deep down, they knew better, because there were once laws against teaching black people to read and write. . . but no such laws against teaching cattle and pigs literacy. 

They KNEW what they were doing, and they knew the fallacy of their position, and they did it anyhow.  There's a certain obsessiveness in that: They thought they were "protecting" something valuable, but they were actually making a spurious claim to superiority on shaky grounds.

The "fight" against gay rights is the same sort of thing.  There's no really good reason for it, just an unwillingness to admit that.  And here's the thing.  You don't make me "sad."  You just make me shrug.  You are one of the reasons why I support human equality under law: because we need, as a species, to understand that we are all in this together.  Some of us got to this position first, that's all.  Some never will.