What will conservatives do when gay marriage is legal everywhere?

Travis

Misanthrope of the Mountains
Travis
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
24,133
There is evidence that some plan to abandon America altogether and seek shelter in places like Costa Rica.

On Thursday, End Times broadcaster Rick Wiles invited John Price, a onetime failed Republican Senate candidate from Indiana and author of “The End of America,” to discuss his decision to move to Costa Rica three years ago in order to follow God’s call to “flee from the daughter of Babylon and not stay and participant in her sins and not be around when the nation is destroyed.”

Price said that same-sex couples will use the Supreme Court case to sue churches that decline to perform same-sex weddings, which he said was prophesied by the Bible. Eventually, Price predicted, “there will even be blood in the church and blood of the martyrs in Babylon and violence in the land.”
Click to expand...


So, if conservatives leave the country that they love....supposedly...what then? I mean aside from the fact that we'll finally be able to take care of the poor, provide health care for all, educate the young and rebuild our national infrastructure. All things conservatives would rather die than ever let happen. Or will they simply throw their hands up like Kermit for a few years then forget about it as they continue to find that gay people getting married doesn't actually change their lives?
 
Travis said:
There is evidence that some plan to abandon America altogether and seek shelter in places like Costa Rica.




So, if conservatives leave the country that they love....supposedly...what then? I mean aside from the fact that we'll finally be able to take care of the poor, provide health care for all, educate the young and rebuild our national infrastructure. All things conservatives would rather die than ever let happen. Or will they simply throw their hands up like Kermit for a few years then forget about it as they continue to find that gay people getting married doesn't actually change their lives?
Click to expand...

According to Phyllis Schlafly, losing the fight won't end it for her brand of "conservative." They'll do the Black Night routine ("it's just a scratch!") no matter what the Supreme Court says. Pissing in everybody else's soup has always been the way of folks like her when they can't get their own way to begin with.

And her concept of how politics in America should work is...interesting:
I do believe the grass roots can take back the Republican Party... These kingmakers... they're the people who really want us to be bipartisan and get along with everybody. But that's not the American way. Americans believe in the adversarial concept.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Same thing they (and over other political ideology) does whenever they lose a batter, ignore it.
 
"Think I'll marry a dude." -- Eliot Ness
 
Once again, Travis' ability to locate unknown "conservatives" astounds me. Rick Wiles does not have a page on Wikipedia, nor does Indiana politico John Price.
 
You haven't heard of Rick Wiles? The guy that thinks Obama will ship Christians off to camps?

Am I the only one here that spends all day reading right wing blogs and listening to right wing radio? I mean, you know, when I'm not finishing off my epic five part romantic opera "New Orleans Firehouse Down" which will feature a tragic separation of two young lovers during a cholera epidemic.
 
You really have to turn over a lot of rocks to find such extreme conservatives like these guys. Why give them any attention at all? They don't represent a large number of conservatives.
 
There's hardly any rational reason for emigrating from a country only because same-sex marriages become legally recognized, except perhaps if one is so extremely opposed to such legislation that one doesn't want to directly and indirectly support the government and bureaucracy that recognize those same laws.

And if you are wondering: no it's not rational to believe that churches will be legally coerced to wed same-sex couples, that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will lead to social collapse and upheaval or that any of that is prophesied in the bible.
 
When I read things like this where the immediate jump is made to armed Feds forcing people to do stuff I imagine things like this are going on in their heads.
 

Attachments

  • vaccine mandatory.jpg
    vaccine mandatory.jpg
    48 KB · Views: 14
Probably by pretending that conservatives were never opposed to gay rights in the first place.

Sure, it's laughable on its face, but cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.
 
Cleon said:
Probably by pretending that conservatives were never opposed to gay rights in the first place.

Sure, it's laughable on its face, but cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.
Click to expand...

Wow, did you just speculate about something that has not happened and then accuse the hypothetical people who you speculate might do something of cognitive dissonance?

So that is a thing now.... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Travis said:
You haven't heard of Rick Wiles? The guy that thinks Obama will ship Christians off to camps?

Am I the only one here that spends all day reading right wing blogs and listening to right wing radio? I mean, you know, when I'm not finishing off my epic five part romantic opera "New Orleans Firehouse Down" which will feature a tragic separation of two young lovers during a cholera epidemic.
Click to expand...

[SNIP]
Edited by kmortis: 
Removed Rule 12 & 0 violation.


Republican's think Obama wants to ship Christians off to camps?

I think Republicans are trying to limit the size of government, your inability to debate the REAL issues just shows you already lost the argument.

It's why the Republicans took over control of both houses of congress
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
[SNIP]
Edited by kmortis: 
Removed Rule 12 & 0 violation.


Republican's think Obama wants to ship Christians off to camps?
Click to expand...

He mentioned Rick Wiles, not Republicans.


I think Republicans are trying to limit the size of government, your inability to debate the REAL issues just shows you already lost the argument.

It's why the Republicans took over control of both houses of congress
Click to expand...
Ignoring the fact that Ronald Reagan and GWB both increased the size of government. Oh well. Maybe the next GOPer prez will do it.

Steve S
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How does writing new laws to keep discriminatory practices intact keep government small?
 
Cleon said:
Probably by pretending that conservatives were never opposed to gay rights in the first place.
Click to expand...

And Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supported gay marriage. Just not, you know, out loud.
 
Last edited:
Dessi said:
They will begin drafting and enacting bills which write specific religious exemptions into their states anti-discrimination ordinaces, passing state laws which prevent cities from enacting city-ordinances which protect classes of people who are not already protected at the state level, and attempting to roll back existing LGBT protections.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the tried and true anti-abortion model: add extra requirements that, each by itself, doesn't appear to unfairly limit anything, while making it either logically or logistically imposible to satisfy all of them simultaneously.
 
GodMark2 said:
Don't forget the tried and true anti-abortion model: add extra requirements that, each by itself, doesn't appear to unfairly limit anything, while making it either logically or logistically imposible to satisfy all of them simultaneously.
Click to expand...

About twenty years ago an Indiana legislator made a speech in which he declared that if abortions were equally available to women AND men then the procedure was discriminatory and should be banned.
 
Travis said:
There is evidence that some plan to abandon America altogether and seek shelter in places like Costa Rica.
Click to expand...

Ahh? Still hope for the USA, then?

Nice. :D

Too bad for Costa Rice, of course, but I hear they have other methods.

Hans
 
Cleon said:
Probably by pretending that conservatives were never opposed to gay rights in the first place.
Click to expand...

This. A couple years of whining about how it's so horrible that gays are getting married now. Followed by a decade or so of near silence on this issue. Soon to be followed by "of COURSE gay can marry. We never thought they couldn't be able to".
 
bonzombiekitty said:
This. A couple years of whining about how it's so horrible that gays are getting married now. Followed by a decade or so of near silence on this issue. Soon to be followed by "of COURSE gay can marry. We never thought they couldn't be able to".
Click to expand...
IOW exactly the same as liberals, only a decade behind.
 
WildCat said:
IOW exactly the same as liberals, only a decade behind.
Click to expand...

This is the second time this dodge has been tried.

Are we supposed to cringe in embarrassment? When people come around to the progressive way of thinking, which they always do if they have the ability to think clearly, it's a victory. Would we prefer that they came around earlier? Sure. It'd make the struggle that much less difficult.

Personally, I was just pleased as punch that we watched George Wallace morph from ****** to niggra to nee-grow in one short decade. I know people who met him in his dotage who say that he really didn't seem racist, at all. Do I believe him? Maybe, maybe not but the point is it makes it so much easier on the rest of us when the miscreants bow to overall peer pressure and learn to behave as "not miscreants", don't you find?

If Billary or Barack didn't have the spine to support various aspects of gay rights when they didn't think the winds were blowing that way, yeah, too bad for them that it took them so long. But we liberals are the group with the big tent. If you see the light, you are welcome into the company of humans.
 
Foolmewunz said:
This is the second time this dodge has been tried.

Are we supposed to cringe in embarrassment? When people come around to the progressive way of thinking, which they always do if they have the ability to think clearly, it's a victory. Would we prefer that they came around earlier? Sure. It'd make the struggle that much less difficult.

Personally, I was just pleased as punch that we watched George Wallace morph from ****** to niggra to nee-grow in one short decade. I know people who met him in his dotage who say that he really didn't seem racist, at all. Do I believe him? Maybe, maybe not but the point is it makes it so much easier on the rest of us when the miscreants bow to overall peer pressure and learn to behave as "not miscreants", don't you find?

If Billary or Barack didn't have the spine to support various aspects of gay rights when they didn't think the winds were blowing that way, yeah, too bad for them that it took them so long. But we liberals are the group with the big tent. If you see the light, you are welcome into the company of humans.
Click to expand...
It sort of depends on which conservatives. I think you're mostly right, that they'll get used to reform and forget how hard they fought it so short a time ago, which is a little irritating, especially when they seem never to connect the dots, and jump straight into fighting another reform that they will forget they did when they lose again. But we end up in the right place eventually, we get some checks and balances and the brakes slow down both the good and the excessive, and some of us can feel good that we led the way.

Actually the prediction of some is slower. It took a very short while before the opponents of gay marriage, who had earlier turned purple with righteous rage over the concept of civil unions, began to consider them a fine alternative to avoid the dreaded "m" word. Here in Vermont, once the whole thing happened, most everyone just went on about their business. Fifteen years ago, the bishop of Burlington waxed eloquent on how civil unions would undermine the holy integrity of the civil marriage his own church condemns, and the conservative pundit "Ruthless Ruth" Dwyer dilated on how civil unions would cause death and disease, and last year, my little conservative country town, which always votes Republican, had a gay local florist as the "businessman of the year" in their town report.

But this forum reminds us that there are always going to be a few who hold on forever. The poor are not poor enough, and the golden age when sovereign property rights trumped civil rights glows in their memories.

I can only hope that the world they walk through daily is as dismal and dirty as they claim it to be here. I would hate to think that they are hypocritically happy in a world they so despise and so seek to deny us.
 
I expect that regardless of the legality of gay marriage, the various stupid, idiotic, lying Republicans will continue to 'take a wide stance' and speak against loudly and often against gay marriage.
 
Crossbow said:
I expect that regardless of the legality of gay marriage, the various stupid, idiotic, lying Republicans will continue to 'take a wide stance' and speak against loudly and often against gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Nah, mainstream Republicans have already started jumping off the bandwagon, with a number of them even saying they support same-sex marriage. Even Bush Sr. is ok with it now. IMO the current wave of "religious discrimination" bills are just the last gasp of a dying movement.

I predict either the 2016 or 2020 Republican presidential candidate will endorse marriage equality. Even if they're the same person.
 
Foolmewunz said:
This is the second time this dodge has been tried.

Are we supposed to cringe in embarrassment? When people come around to the progressive way of thinking, which they always do if they have the ability to think clearly, it's a victory.
Click to expand...
This is the kind of arrogance that bothers me -as if the progressive view on every issue is the Truth. I may agree that gay marriage should be legal but I don't fool myself that my view is the ultimate Truth Delivered Through Rationality. Our moral outlooks happen to coincide on this issue. Political decision making isn't purely rational: It's a balance between morality and rationality.
 
WildCat said:
IOW exactly the same as liberals, only a decade behind.
Click to expand...

It's funny. There's a conservative poster on here that just loves to yell "Tu Quoque!" anytime a similar comment is made with any topic.

I'm sure he'll be along any minute now to correct you.

Yep. Sure of it.
 
Cleon said:
Nah, mainstream Republicans have already started jumping off the bandwagon, with a number of them even saying they support same-sex marriage. Even Bush Sr. is ok with it now. IMO the current wave of "religious discrimination" bills are just the last gasp of a dying movement.

I predict either the 2016 or 2020 Republican presidential candidate will endorse marriage equality. Even if they're the same person.
Click to expand...

Just to let you know, when I used the term "wide stance" I was referring to Sen. Larry Craig who often voted against and spoke against gay marriage (and who hated Clinton for the Lewinsky Affair) but who was caught trying to have sort-of-sex with another man at in an airport bathroom.

Thanks.
 
They'll co-opt it into their platform and act like they've always championed the idea (ignoring any past history to the contrary like they do every other subject that they've found themselves on the wrong side of history of). You know, being the party of personal freedom and smaller (less intrusive) government and all that.
 
xjx388 said:
This is the kind of arrogance that bothers me -as if the progressive view on every issue is the Truth. I may agree that gay marriage should be legal but I don't fool myself that my view is the ultimate Truth Delivered Through Rationality. Our moral outlooks happen to coincide on this issue. Political decision making isn't purely rational: It's a balance between morality and rationality.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, the progressive view may not be the truth, but apparently it is a decade ahead of the conservative view:

WildCat said:
IOW exactly the same as liberals, only a decade behind.
Click to expand...

Or have there been examples where conservative views on civil rights have proven to be "the Truth"?
 
wareyin said:
Hmmm, the progressive view may not be the truth, but apparently it is a decade ahead of the conservative view:



Or have there been examples where conservative views on civil rights have proven to be "the Truth"?
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "The Truth." We only really have opinions about these kinds of things. If one group fights for their opinions to be more widely adopted and they eventually are, that doesn't mean they were more rational or more right, only that they were more persuasive.
 
xjx388 said:
There is no such thing as "The Truth." We only really have opinions about these kinds of things. If one group fights for their opinions to be more widely adopted and they eventually are, that doesn't mean they were more rational or more right, only that they were more persuasive.
Click to expand...

Of course conservatives say that. Then they don't have to admit being wrong, just a different opinion that didn't prevail.
 
LSSBB said:
Speaking as a conservative, I'll be alright. No skin off my back.

Oh wait, was I supposed to fit into some stereotype? I keep losing track of these things...
Click to expand...

One of the reasons that the Political sections of this forum has the reputation of being where "rational thought goes to die" is the both sides use the tactic of finding extremists on the other side of the political fence,and then portraying them as being what "all Consevatives..(or Liberals) are like".

And of course get outraged when the other side does exactly what you are doing.
 
xjx388 said:
There is no such thing as "The Truth." We only really have opinions about these kinds of things. If one group fights for their opinions to be more widely adopted and they eventually are, that doesn't mean they were more rational or more right, only that they were more persuasive.
Click to expand...


Of course there is 'truth' in such things. Now I understand that you're saying there is no 'The Truth' that we work towards or that the opinion 'gay marriage should/shouldn't be legal' is of course an opinion, but there is 'truth' supporting each opinion.

Gay marriage shouldn't be legal = opinion.

Gay marriage will cause straight divorce = not opinion, claim of fact.

When one opinion is supported with actual truth, while the other is supported with actual falsehoods, it isn't out of bounds to call one opinion 'truth' and the other 'false'. When used in common language, this means one is supported and the other is not. More plainly, one opinion is much more reflective of reality than the other.
 
Travis said:
You haven't heard of Rick Wiles? The guy that thinks Obama will ship Christians off to camps?

Am I the only one here that spends all day reading right wing blogs and listening to right wing radio? I mean, you know, when I'm not finishing off my epic five part romantic opera "New Orleans Firehouse Down" which will feature a tragic separation of two young lovers during a cholera epidemic.
Click to expand...

You probably listen to Rush Limbaugh, too. How is the old deef fat **** doing?
 
Travis said:
... Am I the only one here that spends all day reading right wing blogs and listening to right wing radio?
Click to expand...

Quite possibly yes.

I've taken to listening to a local conservative talk station that has abandoned its motto of "The Truth." They have good traffic reports, news at top & bottom of hour and I sometimes find it entertaining. Today it was trying to mock Hillary re: email controversy, but in the process it aired verbatim much of Clinton's statement. Chelsea's wedding, etc. were not on .gov servers. Clinton sounded pretty good. I don't hunt down conservatives to mock, although it's tempting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom