Congratulations, our on-site Romney supporters

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would argue that a majority of the population is prolife and that a majority of the population is against gay marriage. Ergo, your argument has no merit here. If say 50 percent of those who were prolife, also supported gay marriage, then we should expect to see the exact same percentage voting for someone who was prolife and rejected gay marriage, as someone who accepted gay marriage and supported abortion. See what I'm saying?

Right now you've got that entire core of the republicans disenfranchised, while you've got Obama defending his core. This isn't a successful strategy, since both Romney and Obama are fighting for the same core.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm willing to moderate on fiscal conservatism, but not on social. Your game.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On the contrary, if I look at his actions, he is both pro choice and pro gay marriage, and supporting public funded health care. Maybe that seems odd to you, but some of us just want to be left alone, not forced by the government to pay for something that we do not want.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you're asking conservatives to buy into the man with no convictions. Can't you see why this is a disaster?

Why do Romney's personal convictions matter anyway? As long as he promises to appoint a conservative judge, I'm happy.

And the gay marriage issue is lost, Hollywood and the media have successfully sold the propaganda, and the people have sold out themselves and their children into a society where perversity is celebrated as diversity. It's over.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.