Congratulations, our on-site Romney supporters

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

I also think it's off-base to interpret homosexuality as a complex of sex acts only or primarily, despite the unfortunate construction of the word and of the phrase 'sexual orientation'. It also makes me wonder how the people making these sorts of arguments see their own (presumable) heterosexuality. Let's please not use the hydraulic model if we can avoid it.

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.

So what?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

'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.

All I'm saying is there is a scientific/natural purpose for heterosexual attraction. Homosexual attraction makes no sense to me, even though I feel both myself. It's fine if people like feeling it and want to engage in it, but saying it's just as normal and biologically healthy as heterosexual attraction seems like self delusion to me.

[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.

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.

Which is odd, as couples who don't have children tend to save quite a lot of money, and are on average higher up on the economic ladder.

[Politico]

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.

Now you're demanding that we social conservatives give up everything on the issues we care most about. No sale. I'm tired of 'working with conservatives' who have no desire to work with me.

You are mistaken. We will simply be asking for capitulation on social issues between now and November. We need your side to be quiet about social issues so that the focus is solely upon economics. Why? Because that's how we win in November.

I guarantee a Romney Administration will be much more favorable for social conservatives than a second term for Barack Obama.

Romney lives the good Christian life. He believes in the sanctity of marriage and life. But that does not mean he wants to lose by talking about these things between now and November. There will be plenty of time to talk about such things over the course of a Romney Administration.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Conversations like this one are exactly why we will lose in November.

I don't like gay marriage because I don't like it. I'm not about to be apologetic for my opinion by looking for some pseudo-scientific-theological justification. Call me a bigot... but I just don't think it's right.

But it's unfortunately a losing issue. Since it's abundantly clear that a Republican would be the best person for America right now, I also think it's abundantly clear that the GOP needs a winning strategy. Talking about the semantics of homosexuality and birth control will not get us anywhere in a GE campaign.

I think these social issues are better as a "silent agreement." I trust Mitt enough to carry through once he's elected. Some people don't. Either way, I think it's better to wait and see than to force the point now. The choices are Romney and Obama. We know exactly where Obama stands. I'd rather take my chances with Romney.