Declaration and acceptance of “gay marriage” is taking a society suicide pill. In brief, it says that you don’t care about raising children anymore because you aren’t giving the means of reproduction, the male/female family, the support it needs.

I prefer to not take that pill, thank you. And saying “the Republican Party will go *here*, and its members will follow” puts the cart before the horse.

So this idea is lose-lose all around.

about this with a co-worker here at Columbia today. (Talk about liberal land) He seemed to be unaware that Obama didn’t support gay marriage. “Really?” I had to point it out to him.

You’re going to get slammed here on Redstate (already banned – how dare you talk about gay people?), but I happen to agree with you about points 3 and 6. Quite frankly, liberty allows for a person to do what they want in the bedroom, and I remember Jefferson saying something about liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If someone consensually wants to do a little butt bumping or handle themselves in their community as a committed couple, it is morally presumptuous to tell them no.

One of the key issues is consent (can only be undertaken by adults, pushing out young wives, Man Boy club, etc.) Another question would be how to prevent the slippery slope of polygamy.

I know people here for the most part are against gay marriage (is marriage a governmental or religious institution anyway?) but it’s support among the younger demographic, the mini-boomlet, is pretty high. We look like bigots no matter how we arrange our argument unless it’s under the umbrella of liberty. Family and reproduction arguments are a non-starter because advocates can always point out to non reproducing couples and say how they shouldn’t be married (people unable to have children by choice or not). Moral hazard is something that few people understand and the “moral decay” argument of Gibbons is kind of outdated and shown to be false. Really, with designer babies and genetic manipulation on the horizon, are 2 committed gays really the line we want to die trying to hold?

People think this issue is about moving the party left (as neokorn, you are already banned for even suggesting a change even with you being a troll, but I forgot that Reagan put anti-gaydom as a pillar of the party), but it’s really moving it back towards the side of freedom. If they’re not hurting anyone, and they’re committed, let them be!

But hey, that’s the New GOP. The Dems went insane and the only opposition is drifting without control. Ugh.

we could have cleared house just by watching all our supposed;y socially liberal but fiscally moderate members come out themselves one by one while the blamstick quietly swooped in one at a time as deemed necessary.

Either way at least 2 are gone.

Thomas Sowell wrote a great piece on the reaction to CAs prop 8 vote. Not only is the gay community trying to “redefine what marriage has meant for centuries” but their reaction to the vote (CA voted it down) was one of embarrassment. Here are the take away points:
- Gay activists apparently feel they have a “right to win”; otherwise its discrimination
- While demanding tolerance from others, gay activists apparently feel no need to show any themselves

I was reminded of this article (written in November) after the Prejean “controversy”, which has basically proven every one of Sowell’s points.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2E1ODgyMDczMDA3NzkzY2E4YTNhNjgzMjk2NmEyOTY=