I have come to realize that marriage would not make my life better nor happier. We do whatever we have to do together, and continue living like we want. I do not understand the hyperventilation from gay friends on this issue. I assume it is more about social acceptance perceptions than it is about getting more rights from the government.

If the Republican Party is to regain a foothold in the big cities, it must wink at the lifestyles of those that typically slam sexual discipline and promote socialist views. Maybe this isn’t a popular thought on this blog, but I say forget it. Republicans stand for positive family values and behavior– it was Republican friends and family that helped me out of my self-destruction. Why would I want them to suddenly embrace all of that?

It’s a ruse to say that the gay community only wants marriage and all will be fine. It was also this “community” that brought me to brink of suicide through its condoning of my old ways.

But that’s another story…

So you admit that you’re attacking Republicans for things you excuse your Obama Party for doing.

If you gay-sex liberals want to be taken seriously, you could try holding your Obama Party to the same rules as you demand of Republicans. But then you wouldn’t be servile and useful to your Obama Party and they would stop liking you.

Given that Obama opposes gay-sex marriage, given that the DNC and the Obama Party support FMA supporters in the Obama Party, given that the DNC practices job discrimination against gays, given that the Obama Party supports and endorses Louis Farrakhan and his rhetoric about gays, and that the Obama Party actually ran numerous candidates who supported state constitutional amendments, what exactly constitutes “shameful” — especially since DaveA and his ilk insist that all these actions by the Obama Party are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”?

Re-frame the political argument as Federally-recognised civil unions vs. State-sanctioned gay marriage and you’d see a vastly-different political cross-section.

Frankly, I think marriage has a purpose, and it shouldn’t be used as a political pawn to lure people towards or against a candidate. Society should engage in the conversation, but NOT through a candidate. It should come through those who are open on both sides, and those who struggle with the issue, on both sides.

But, for the record…marriage ain’t all it is played up to be. The wedding day is the climax, and most people find out the work starts on that day. As the comedian Gallagher said once, if you want to end gay sex, let ‘em get married. That’ll stop the sex!

How dare we uppity Republicans look past the colour of a man’s skin (or their choice of bedmates) to the content of their character.

You beat this dead-horse ceaselessly and never answer criticism. So, I’m going to ratchet up my criticism.

You have argued on one hand, correctly, that there is nothing inherently anti-gay about supporting traditional marriage. Indeed there isn’t. Yet, on the other, you argue that Republicans must stop supporting traditional marriage lest we appear anti-gay.

So, in other words, rather than stand up for principles, you argue, the Republican party should concede to erroneous characterizations of their principles made by their opponents and allow policy that a large majority of Americans think is harmful…in order to correct an erroneous perception held by people who arent likely to vote for Republicans to begin with.

Gee, that sounds like a great idea!

And to what end?

You argue that Schmidt (and Meghan McCain, David Frumpy, etc) is “spot on” when he says — as you quote:

For the party to be seen as anti-gay, that is injurious to its candidates in places like California and Washington

And perhaps it is, but as you have previously said, being pro-marriage is NOT anti-gay.

But one thing that is demonstrably NOT true, is that supporting traditional marriage has hurt Republicans in places like California, where the very pro-gay John McCain lost overwhelmingly despite his pro-gay positions, attitudes and overtures — yet proposition 8 WON a healthy majority in a deeply liberal state.

In short: Pro-gay Republicans LOSE while “anti-gay” traditional marriage WINS.

Either 53% of Californians are anti-gay, or you are promoting falsehoods.

By the way, that victory alone shows traditional marriage values are NOT just a “social conservative” position as you infer, but an issue with mainstream support. If 53% of Californians were “social conservatives” Republicans would own the state.

And if Republicans are to abandon support for traditional marriage so that we dont “appear” anti-gay…. where is it you suggest we are going to make inroads with the 53% of Californians and other Americans who agree that traditional marriage is important? You know, the people Republicans need in order to win?

Whats more, I think you, Meghan McCain, David Frumpy, and this man who engineered John McCains LOSS do great harm to Republicans by accepting and promoting the falsehood that supporting and defending the importance of traditional marriage is somehow “anti-gay”.

Remember, the exact same people who buy the b*llshit that Republicans are “anti-gay” are the exact same people who think we are sexist, racist, bigots.

Perhaps you can next argue that we should stop supporting the 10th amendment, and stop opposing a cradle to grave welfare state lest we “appear” racist and sexist?

The new administration seems just as unwilling to actually take any real steps towards gay rights, so they get a f-minus on social issues as well as far as I’m concerned. It seems like Obama would only support some type of gay marriage legislation if he thought it would buy him votes. It should be noted I don’t think marriage should be something the government should regulate in any shape form or fashion anyways, why should we give the state power in our bedroom? Its not only the LGBT community which suffers exclusionary loss of rights from this type of government sanctioned arangement, but also polygamists; polygamists can be found in nearly 75% of the worlds population and I really don’t see any compelling reason to disallow it.

Bottom line: if two or more parties wish two contractually agree to co-habitate and spend their lives together why should they be prohibited?