Congratulations, our on-site Romney supporters

[redcommander]

This has nothing to do with Mitt. I'm saying that the cause is lost, you can't even argue against gay marriage anymore without being called a bigot. According to Gallup, 53% of the country now favors gay marriage, and the younger the voters are, the more liberal they are on the issue.

Personally, I'd rather the conservative movement focus on opposing gay adoptions, but stunningly, people seem even less opposed to that than gay marriage.

Why should two people of the same gender be denied the right to raise a child just because of their sexual orientation? Plus Republicans should be supporting gay adoption. If the party is pro-family, it should be promoting more people having and raising children.

[Cobbler]

Dude, he wasn't calling you a bigot, he was saying that in our society right now, people get called bigots when they argue against gay marriage.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Virginia and Florida are northern states, essentially. North Carolina is basically there as well, thoguh the GOP still likes to pretend it isn't sometimes. The Republican candidate for Governor is a big city mayor who was born in Ohio. South Carolina and Georgia will be like that fairly soon as well. Becoming completely dependent on the "old" South is a loser strategy because soon it will be just Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana.

Don't judge South Carolina on the basis of the Metrolina area or the Grand Strand.  South Carolina will be safely Southern for the immediate future.

[Oakvale]

We had a moderate candidate who was acceptable to us. Perry.

...

We had another moderate candidate who was acceptable to us. Cain.

*speechless*

[Lincoln Republican]

We had a moderate candidate who was acceptable to us. Perry. You folks turned him down. We had another moderate candidate who was acceptable to us. Cain. You folks turned him down.

Yes, two sterling candidates.  One who couldn't communicate two  ideas in a row cohesively, and the other a perverted sexual harasser offering jobs for sex.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

100 percent capitulation to Obama on social issues is unacceptable. We had a moderate candidate who was acceptable to us. Perry. You folks turned him down. We had another moderate candidate who was acceptable to us. Cain. You folks turned him down.

Good one.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And the percentage of people who think that Cain and Perry were moderate candidates, is probably 15% if that.

[Wisconsin+17]

We have polls on this very site showing that Cain was leading in Hawaii.

Are you telling me that the Hawaii GOP is dominated by conservative republicans?

[Lincoln Republican]

Congratulations, our on-site Romney supporters

Thank you. 

[The Mikado]

Congrats, Romney and fans. 

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

This has nothing to do with Mitt. I'm saying that the cause is lost, you can't even argue against gay marriage anymore without being called a bigot. According to Gallup, 53% of the country now favors gay marriage, and the younger the voters are, the more liberal they are on the issue.

Personally, I'd rather the conservative movement focus on opposing gay adoptions, but stunningly, people seem even less opposed to that than gay marriage.

Why should two people of the same gender be denied the right to raise a child just because of their sexual orientation? Plus Republicans should be supporting gay adoption. If the party is pro-family, it should be promoting more people having and raising children.

'Sexual orientation' is an absurd term. There is normal sexuality, and abnormal sexuality. Normal "Heterosexual" sexuality is of course the only way to pro-create, virtually all science shows that pro-creation is the only natural point of sexual attraction. This is true whether you choose to pro-create or not. The want and desire to have sex does have a natural purpose. It is not a racial, white and black thing.

Abnormal sexuality includes everything from Homosexuality to Pedophilia. While there is obviously a huge gap in what is socially/morally acceptable, I do not differenciate between the abnormal types biologically. They all have no natural purpose, and therefore are obviously the bi-product of some biological problem. I cannot support putting children into an enviroment with potentially mentally unhealthy people. If homosexuals are to have children, I would want them to have to go through a process that shows their sexual attractions are not too off course.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This has nothing to do with Mitt. I'm saying that the cause is lost, you can't even argue against gay marriage anymore without being called a bigot. According to Gallup, 53% of the country now favors gay marriage, and the younger the voters are, the more liberal they are on the issue.

Personally, I'd rather the conservative movement focus on opposing gay adoptions, but stunningly, people seem even less opposed to that than gay marriage.

Why should two people of the same gender be denied the right to raise a child just because of their sexual orientation? Plus Republicans should be supporting gay adoption. If the party is pro-family, it should be promoting more people having and raising children.

'Sexual orientation' is an absurd term. There is normal sexuality, and abnormal sexuality. Normal "Heterosexual" sexuality is of course the only way to pro-create, virtually all science shows that pro-creation is the only natural point of sexual attraction. This is true whether you choose to pro-create or not. The want and desire to have sex does have a natural purpose. It is not a racial, white and black thing.

Abnormal sexuality includes everything from Homosexuality to Pedophilia. While there is obviously a huge gap in what is socially/morally acceptable, I do not differenciate between the abnormal types biologically. They all have no natural purpose, and therefore are obviously the bi-product of some biological problem. I cannot support putting children into an enviroment with potentially mentally unhealthy people. If homosexuals are to have children, I would want them to have to go through a process that shows their sexual attractions are not too off course.

Do come out of the closet when you feel the time is right.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

This has nothing to do with Mitt. I'm saying that the cause is lost, you can't even argue against gay marriage anymore without being called a bigot. According to Gallup, 53% of the country now favors gay marriage, and the younger the voters are, the more liberal they are on the issue.

Personally, I'd rather the conservative movement focus on opposing gay adoptions, but stunningly, people seem even less opposed to that than gay marriage.

Why should two people of the same gender be denied the right to raise a child just because of their sexual orientation? Plus Republicans should be supporting gay adoption. If the party is pro-family, it should be promoting more people having and raising children.

'Sexual orientation' is an absurd term. There is normal sexuality, and abnormal sexuality. Normal "Heterosexual" sexuality is of course the only way to pro-create, virtually all science shows that pro-creation is the only natural point of sexual attraction. This is true whether you choose to pro-create or not. The want and desire to have sex does have a natural purpose. It is not a racial, white and black thing.

Abnormal sexuality includes everything from Homosexuality to Pedophilia. While there is obviously a huge gap in what is socially/morally acceptable, I do not differenciate between the abnormal types biologically. They all have no natural purpose, and therefore are obviously the bi-product of some biological problem. I cannot support putting children into an enviroment with potentially mentally unhealthy people. If homosexuals are to have children, I would want them to have to go through a process that shows their sexual attractions are not too off course.

Do come out of the closet when you feel the time is right.

I have come to terms with the fact that my bi-sexuality is unhealthy and is some genetic problem. I am not the kind of person that hides from the truth.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This has nothing to do with Mitt. I'm saying that the cause is lost, you can't even argue against gay marriage anymore without being called a bigot. According to Gallup, 53% of the country now favors gay marriage, and the younger the voters are, the more liberal they are on the issue.

Personally, I'd rather the conservative movement focus on opposing gay adoptions, but stunningly, people seem even less opposed to that than gay marriage.

Why should two people of the same gender be denied the right to raise a child just because of their sexual orientation? Plus Republicans should be supporting gay adoption. If the party is pro-family, it should be promoting more people having and raising children.

'Sexual orientation' is an absurd term. There is normal sexuality, and abnormal sexuality. Normal "Heterosexual" sexuality is of course the only way to pro-create, virtually all science shows that pro-creation is the only natural point of sexual attraction. This is true whether you choose to pro-create or not. The want and desire to have sex does have a natural purpose. It is not a racial, white and black thing.

Abnormal sexuality includes everything from Homosexuality to Pedophilia. While there is obviously a huge gap in what is socially/morally acceptable, I do not differenciate between the abnormal types biologically. They all have no natural purpose, and therefore are obviously the bi-product of some biological problem. I cannot support putting children into an enviroment with potentially mentally unhealthy people. If homosexuals are to have children, I would want them to have to go through a process that shows their sexual attractions are not too off course.

Do come out of the closet when you feel the time is right.

I have come to terms with the fact that my bi-sexuality is unhealthy and is some genetic problem. I am not the kind of person that hides from the truth.

Ah, well at least you can admit you're self-loathing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think that the feeling that the purpose of life is to maximize real or perceived evolutionary advantages is an immensely and tragically off-the-reservation way of looking at the world.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

This has nothing to do with Mitt. I'm saying that the cause is lost, you can't even argue against gay marriage anymore without being called a bigot. According to Gallup, 53% of the country now favors gay marriage, and the younger the voters are, the more liberal they are on the issue.

Personally, I'd rather the conservative movement focus on opposing gay adoptions, but stunningly, people seem even less opposed to that than gay marriage.

Why should two people of the same gender be denied the right to raise a child just because of their sexual orientation? Plus Republicans should be supporting gay adoption. If the party is pro-family, it should be promoting more people having and raising children.

'Sexual orientation' is an absurd term. There is normal sexuality, and abnormal sexuality. Normal "Heterosexual" sexuality is of course the only way to pro-create, virtually all science shows that pro-creation is the only natural point of sexual attraction. This is true whether you choose to pro-create or not. The want and desire to have sex does have a natural purpose. It is not a racial, white and black thing.

Abnormal sexuality includes everything from Homosexuality to Pedophilia. While there is obviously a huge gap in what is socially/morally acceptable, I do not differenciate between the abnormal types biologically. They all have no natural purpose, and therefore are obviously the bi-product of some biological problem. I cannot support putting children into an enviroment with potentially mentally unhealthy people. If homosexuals are to have children, I would want them to have to go through a process that shows their sexual attractions are not too off course.

Do come out of the closet when you feel the time is right.

I have come to terms with the fact that my bi-sexuality is unhealthy and is some genetic problem. I am not the kind of person that hides from the truth.

Ah, well at least you can admit you're self-loathing.

I don't loathe myself. I don't consider my sexual attraction an identity, like so many people do in our deluded society. This is what happens when you put people into groups based on their abnormalities. Now we have transgender people. Diversity has been completely hijacked, people warp arguments like 'There's black and white, but we're all the same' into nonsense like 'There's gay and straight' even though they aren't the same. Now you have, 'people who want to keep the genitals they were born with and people who don't'. But hey, it's diversity. We need to tell everyone all the feelings they feel are normal and there's nothing wrong with them, to do otherwise is not very nice.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I think that the feeling that the purpose of life is to maximize real or perceived evolutionary advantages is an immensely and tragically off-the-reservation way of looking at the world.

But you need to look at the big picture, to do otherwise is to believe you are separate from nature.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This has nothing to do with Mitt. I'm saying that the cause is lost, you can't even argue against gay marriage anymore without being called a bigot. According to Gallup, 53% of the country now favors gay marriage, and the younger the voters are, the more liberal they are on the issue.

Personally, I'd rather the conservative movement focus on opposing gay adoptions, but stunningly, people seem even less opposed to that than gay marriage.

Why should two people of the same gender be denied the right to raise a child just because of their sexual orientation? Plus Republicans should be supporting gay adoption. If the party is pro-family, it should be promoting more people having and raising children.

'Sexual orientation' is an absurd term. There is normal sexuality, and abnormal sexuality. Normal "Heterosexual" sexuality is of course the only way to pro-create, virtually all science shows that pro-creation is the only natural point of sexual attraction. This is true whether you choose to pro-create or not. The want and desire to have sex does have a natural purpose. It is not a racial, white and black thing.

Abnormal sexuality includes everything from Homosexuality to Pedophilia. While there is obviously a huge gap in what is socially/morally acceptable, I do not differenciate between the abnormal types biologically. They all have no natural purpose, and therefore are obviously the bi-product of some biological problem. I cannot support putting children into an enviroment with potentially mentally unhealthy people. If homosexuals are to have children, I would want them to have to go through a process that shows their sexual attractions are not too off course.

Do come out of the closet when you feel the time is right.

I have come to terms with the fact that my bi-sexuality is unhealthy and is some genetic problem. I am not the kind of person that hides from the truth.

Ah, well at least you can admit you're self-loathing.

I don't loathe myself. I don't consider my sexual attraction an identity, like so many people do in our deluded society. This is what happens when you put people into groups based on their abnormalities. Now we have transgender people. Diversity has been completely hijacked, people warp arguments like 'There's black and white, but we're all the same' into nonsense like 'There's gay and straight' even though they aren't the same. Now you have, 'people who want to keep the genitals they were born with and people who don't'. But hey, it's diversity. We need to tell everyone all the feelings they feel are normal and there's nothing wrong with them, to do otherwise is not very nice.

Most people don't consider certain sexual attractions to be genetic disorders, either.  Whether you're gay, straight, black, or white, you are still a person.  I'm not going to give a big, flowery speech about how everyone is special and unique in their own way, but these traits are essentially what make you different and are part of your identity.  As long as your emotions don't negatively impact others, there should be no reason to hide them or distance yourself from the norm because of them.  Or if you'd like, we can re-segregate the country based on our physical and emotional differences because of course, society just works great under that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think that the feeling that the purpose of life is to maximize real or perceived evolutionary advantages is an immensely and tragically off-the-reservation way of looking at the world.

But you need to look at the big picture, to do otherwise is to believe you are separate from nature.

It's ascribing teleological thrust to evolution that I think is questionable. We obviously are not separate from nature but the mere scientific study of the life sciences doesn't provide much actual direction for us so for our teleology we must look elsewhere.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd like to see an explanation why you believe society should cater to the recognition of certain forms of abnormal sexuality, and not others.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd like to see an explanation why you believe society should cater to the recognition of certain forms of abnormal sexuality, and not others.

1. "Abnormal sexuality" is in the eye of the beholder, so no one person--or group, for that matter--should be telling any other adult what to do in the privacy of their own home with another consenting adult.

2. Homosexuality and pedophilia/bestiality are two very different things. A child or an animal cannot properly consent to sexual activity, while a reasonable adult can. 

I'd like to see a response to these ideas.

[BigSkyBob]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd like to see an explanation why you believe society should cater to the recognition of certain forms of abnormal sexuality, and not others.

1. "Abnormal sexuality" is in the eye of the beholder, so no one person--or group, for that matter--should be telling any other adult what to do in the privacy of their own home with another consenting adult.

2. Homosexuality and pedophilia/bestiality are two very different things. A child or an animal cannot properly consent to sexual activity, while a reasonable adult can. 

I'd like to see a response to these ideas.

#2 is an exercise in circular reasoning. If you declared homosexuality an illness rather than a wellness, or as you put it you exclude them from the pool of "reasonable adults," then you could claim that no individual could "properly" consent to homosexual activity, no more than an alcoholic can "properly" consent to having a drink. It would seem that an animal mounting a human being could reasonably construed as a willing participant. Certainly, juvenile male dogs behave in strange ways. If a child of seventeen is considered "reasonable" enough to consent to sex with a child of fifteen, then, you have to explain why he or she isn't "reasonable" enough to consent to sex with an eighteen year-old? We have laws against bestiality, not animal rape. We have law against underage sex because we have made a social decision that children are off limits.  The "consent" of the child is irrelevant.

as to #1, you really have to explain why at eighteen you magically gain the ability to make "reasonable" choices that you lacked at seventeen?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Abnormal sexuality - sexual conduct that the majority of the population chooses not to engage in. And no, it's 'not in the eye of the beholder'. Why should one form of abnormal sexual conduct be granted recognition?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh really. So 'use a condom every time' is wrong? We tell adults what to do all the time.

What's so special about this abnormal sexual conduct that it needs recognition?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, that's an interesting position. Why does one deserve recognition while the other does not?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you believe that children should not be taught to approve of homosexuality?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think any form of abnormal sexuality deserves recognition by society.

[Phony Moderate]

'Sexual orientation' is an absurd term. There is normal sexuality, and abnormal sexuality. Normal "Heterosexual" sexuality is of course the only way to pro-create, virtually all science shows that pro-creation is the only natural point of sexual attraction. This is true whether you choose to pro-create or not. The want and desire to have sex does have a natural purpose. It is not a racial, white and black thing.

The thing you're dismissing is human nature. Humans generally have an instinct to do whatever gives them pleasure, regardless of whether it's "normal" or not.

[BigSkyBob]

'Sexual orientation' is an absurd term. There is normal sexuality, and abnormal sexuality. Normal "Heterosexual" sexuality is of course the only way to pro-create, virtually all science shows that pro-creation is the only natural point of sexual attraction. This is true whether you choose to pro-create or not. The want and desire to have sex does have a natural purpose. It is not a racial, white and black thing.

The thing you're dismissing is human nature. Humans generally have an instinct to do whatever gives them pleasure, regardless of whether it's "normal" or not.

Human being, like other animals, have a reproduction drive that is larger than a pleasure drive. The "nesting instinct" for instance is not pleasure-oriented. The reproductive drives of males lead them to prefer sex with younger females even though sex with the somewhat older females is apt to be technically better. Their reproductive drive leads them to prefer sex with ovulating women over those that are not, even if they don't see pregnancy as a desirable outcome. The feeling women have that "their biological clock is ticking" is about reproduction, not pleasure.

The reproductive drives of heterosexuals leads them to reproduce in large numbers. The same cannot be said of the reproductive drive of the average homosexual.