McConnell: Congress can't roll back gay marriage decision

[musiclady]

The only thing that sets me off Musiclady, is turning the debate from the issue to me.  My motives, intelligence or dependencies are irrelevant.  If I bring up a poll, show me were its weaknesses are; leave me out of it.  We'll get along fine.

Well that's where you err here.  Looking at polls and having concerns about the moral decline of our Nation are not mutually exclusive.  If you think I don't have concerns about the decline in morality, you haven't been reading my posts.  Here's one from this thread:

With all of that going on, why would I want our GOP candidates to focus on a gay-marriage decision by the Court that is now the law of the land, especially when most Americans agree with it?

That's my motivation, and the argument should be against the points I made, not me.  I do sense that some here are afraid that their maybe these polls are reflecting that Americans are no longer interested in going after their favorite whipping boy, SSM.  After all no one here has condemned the polls showing most Americans favor the right to guns, or favor limited abortions, or feel most of Obama's policies have failed.  It's just this one.  Hmmm.   

LOL.  You said it; I just agreed with you.  As you said to me, don't be so sensitive. 

Have a good day.

You really are a fascinating person, MAC.  All this angst from you just because I used one word gently teasing you about polls, and all this preaching and condescension from someone who claims not to like preaching and condescension from others.  All these personal attacks coming from one who repeatedly accuses others of being too personal.

I wonder if you're this thin skinned and dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it in real life....

Must be a tough life if you are.

Next time, stop preaching, stick to the issues, and we can have a real discussion, OK? 

[Luis Gonzalez]

As I said previously, my grandparents came to America to escape the very kinds of things you accuse me of supporting.  The idea that I am asking for some sort of religious tyranny is just weird.

And dead wrong.

In addition, you have brought into the discussion a number of completely irrelevant personal feelings of yours (many of which are not based in fact, btw) that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.

But to my original point to you.  You insinuated that the only people in the world who try to live moral lives are Evangelical Christians, and that everyone calling for moral constructs for society is some kind of wacko.  My point is that there are moral laws which our Founding Fathers recognized (and, in case you don't know it, Ben Franklin wasn't much of a fundamentalist), and which, if lived by, will allow for a stronger, and more just America.  There are many people outside conservative Christianity who recognize the need to live by a moral code outside of one's own desires.

That's what I've been talking about here.

There is a greater point that baffles me here. That's this idea that homosexuals wanting to marry one another is both inherently immoral and at fault for the moral decline in our country by the mere fact of their wanting to enter into a legal (and moral) union that heterosexuals, both believers and non-believers, have all but abandoned.

Two things that I keep thinking about when I read these "death of the Republic because homosexuals will be allowed to get married" threads.

Shouldn't we be looking to fix the harm that we have done to marriage ourselves before assigning blame to others (Matthew 7:3), and when refusing to violate our Chritian values by baking pastries, arranging flowers or taking photographs should we not apply those values equally and refuse to bake cakes for second, third, and fourth marriages (Matthew 19:9) instead of trying to make political statements with our Christianity?

[truth_seeker]

In addition, you have brought into the discussion a number of completely irrelevant personal feelings of yours (many of which are not based in fact, btw) that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I brought them up in order that they be discussed, as they are completely relevant.

--Most citizen/voters do NOT believe in literal interpretation of the bible (e.g. evangelical position), which is the basis for maltreatment of homosexuals

--Most citizen voters do NOT believe homosexuals can change (evangelical position)

You wonder where does truth_seeker get these ideas? Try from the Father of Modern Conservatism, Barry Goldwater:

"On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.

I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism.""

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

[musiclady]

I brought them up in order that they be discussed, as they are completely relevant.

--Most citizen/voters do NOT believe in literal interpretation of the bible (e.g. evangelical position), which is the basis for maltreatment of homosexuals

--Most citizen voters do NOT believe homosexuals can change (evangelical position)

You wonder where does truth_seeker get these ideas? Try from the Father of Modern Conservatism, Barry Goldwater:

"On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.

I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism.""

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

Barry Goldwater was a libertarian.

That said, I'll try to clarify my point (though I'm quite sure you're not interested).  We have Hindu friends who are moral and believe in family (mother, father, children).  I know moderate Muslims who are moral and believe in family (mother, father, children).  If you look at Asian culture (massive numbers of people in America) and they also believe in family (mother, father, children).

Valuing the nuclear family is not some sort of evangelical Christians only position.  It is the position of many who value structure in society and understand that the family is at the core of that structure.

Every other point you bring up in your desire to belittle Christians, and what you call a "literal" interpretation of the Scriptures is completely irrelevant to the point I have been making.

Morality is not the possession of Christians only, and there are many who practice morality outside of the Christian faith.

THAT is my point.

[musiclady]

There is a greater point that baffles me here. That's this idea that homosexuals wanting to marry one another is both inherently immoral and at fault for the moral decline in our country by the mere fact of their wanting to enter into a legal (and moral) union that heterosexuals, both believers and non-believers, have all but abandoned.

Two things that I keep thinking about when I read these "death of the Republic because homosexuals will be allowed to get married" threads.

Shouldn't we be looking to fix the harm that we have done to marriage ourselves before assigning blame to others (Matthew 7:3), and when refusing to violate our Chritian values by baking pastries, arranging flowers or taking photographs should we not apply those values equally and refuse to bake cakes for second, third, and fourth marriages (Matthew 19:9) instead of trying to make political statements with our Christianity?

The problem with your position, Luis, is that you are looking at homosexual marriage as a micro-issue and not seeing it as part of the macro-problem.  I didn't even come close to implying that homosexual marriage alone would be the 'death of the Republic" (and again, you know it because you are intelligent, and read well).

There are a whole host of other moral issues involved, in addition to a greater host of political and economic issues involved, that are included in the long, long list of things that the radical left is doing to destroy this nation.  Your attempt to belittle our argument by over-simplifying it and reducing it to the point where we are all pretty much nutcases if we hold the position you claim we do, misses the entire point......which is that the radical left is destroying America.

The fact that homosexual marriage is currently the focus of discussion is because the radical left has made it so, and we are reacting to it.  It is not because it is the only thing going wrong in America, it is because it is part of a large number of things going wrong in America.  Those of us who seek a moral construct for society aren't goofy, Luis.  We're reflecting the understanding of the great intellects and character of those who founded this nation.  And we are not calling for this particular moral issue to be the focus of anyone's political campaign.  That argument, used repeatedly, is another straw dog of those who attempt to berate the valid arguments presented on this subject.

I hope that clears up some of your confusion....

[MACVSOG68]

You really are a fascinating person, MAC.  All this angst from you just because I used one word gently teasing you about polls, and all this preaching and condescension from someone who claims not to like preaching and condescension from others.  All these personal attacks coming from one who repeatedly accuses others of being too personal.

I wonder if you're this thin skinned and dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it in real life....

Must be a tough life if you are.

Next time, stop preaching, stick to the issues, and we can have a real discussion, OK? 

You got me ML.  I'm just a weakling in real life.  I guess that's why my momma made me go airborne, wind up in the 82d Airborne, OCS, SF training, 8th Special Forces, Jungle Warfare School, 5th Special Forces VN, and MACVSOG, among other assignments.  But as you noted, it didn't take...

Now ML, if you can just move on from worrying about my "preaching" and "condescension" and "all these personal attacks" and "angst" and "thin-skinned", etc etc. and possibly talk about what some of us are trying to do...the impact of gay-marriage on our Country's moral fabric and what the candidates should be going after in the coming election, we can finally get off of me and all my failings.

So would you like to get back to the topic of the thread?

[musiclady]

You got me ML.  I'm just a weakling in real life.  I guess that's why my momma made me go airborne, wind up in the 82d Airborne, OCS, SF training, 8th Special Forces, Jungle Warfare School, 5th Special Forces VN, and MACVSOG, among other assignments.  But as you noted, it didn't take...

Now ML, if you can just move on from worrying about my "preaching" and "condescension" and "all these personal attacks" and "angst" and "thin-skinned", etc etc. and possibly talk about what some of us are trying to do...the impact of gay-marriage on our Country's moral fabric and what the candidates should be going after in the coming election, we can finally get off of me and all my failings.

So would you like to get back to the topic of the thread?

I've been on it the whole time, MAC.

My only diversion was due to your personal angst and preachiness. 

(btw, Samson, after slaying a thousand Philistines with the jawbone of an ass, sat down and whined because he was thirsty.  Bravery and whining are not mutually exclusive.  ^-^ )

[truth_seeker]

Barry Goldwater was a libertarian.

Morality is not the possession of Christians only, and there are many who practice morality outside of the Christian faith.

THAT is my point.

Since Goldwater the definition of "conservatism" has morphed away from "libertarianism" and into the present "religious" construct, with the Falwell and Huckabee types running for office.

Reagan:

“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

― Ronald Reagan

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/83332-if-you-analyze-it-i-believe-the-very-heart-and

If Republicans expect to win in the future, they need to drift back to the libertarian roots, for no better reasons than--

--Independents lean that way on social issues,
--It is consistent with the founders intent regarding personal freedom
--It is consistent with what at least many feel is the separation of church and state

Regarding the non-Christians to which you refer, I make note that they re not in the public square continually pushing for greater religious influence with our civil laws. That distinction goes to evangelical/fundamentalist Christians.

And when they are pushed to provide the bases for their positions, they often DO refer to literal Bible quotes.

I understand the idea that most/all people want to have their communities consist of other good and moral people, regardless of faith or no faith.

Yet that also happens to be a component part of the homosexual community's position, too. The idea they too want to work, pay taxes, live normal law abiding lives, without being set apart into an outcast "caste," subject to maltreatment, discrimination, etc.
 

[MACVSOG68]

   Bravery and whining are not mutually exclusive.  ^-^ )

True, and neither are teachers and prejudgment.   

[musiclady]

Since Goldwater the definition of "conservatism" has morphed away from "libertarianism" and into the present "religious" construct, with the Falwell and Huckabee types running for office.

Reagan:

“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

― Ronald Reagan

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/83332-if-you-analyze-it-i-believe-the-very-heart-and

If Republicans expect to win in the future, they need to drift back to the libertarian roots, for no better reasons than--

--Independents lean that way on social issues,
--It is consistent with the founders intent regarding personal freedom
--It is consistent with what at least many feel is the separation of church and state

Regarding the non-Christians to which you refer, I make note that they re not in the public square continually pushing for greater religious influence with our civil laws. That distinction goes to evangelical/fundamentalist Christians.

And when they are pushed to provide the bases for their positions, they often DO refer to literal Bible quotes.

I understand the idea that most/all people want to have their communities consist of other good and moral people, regardless of faith or no faith.

Yet that also happens to be a component part of the homosexual community's position, too. The idea they too want to work, pay taxes, live normal law abiding lives, without being set apart into an outcast "caste," subject to maltreatment, discrimination, etc.

You make good points here, t_s, and I think there are grounds for agreement between us among them.

I would disagree, however, that, in this particular time, homosexuals are an 'outcast caste, subject to maltreatment, discrimination, etc.  I agree that it is their argument and that they compare themselves to the discrimination which led to the Civil Rights movement, but I think that is completely off-base, and subjective, rather than factual.

I believe it is a deep insult to those who were subjected to real discrimination based on the color of their skin, who were enslaved, lynched and brutalized (by Democrats), and who needed liberation from those abuses.  There is no such parallel among homosexuals.  If they publicly behave normally, they are treated normally.  There are no longer laws against two men who want to have sex with each other, and the vast majority of people (Christians included) don't treat them badly.....those we work with, socialize with, are friends with.

The problem for most of us is that they are trying, and succeeding, in completely changing the definition of marriage, and therefore rendering it meaningless.  But worse than that, they are bullying and silencing those of us who simply hold the position that marriage is between one man and one woman...... by definition.

We are not evil, t_s.  We are not haters.  We are not homophobes.

And most of us are sick and tired of being called names and told to shut up simply because we hold a traditional and world-wide belief that only heterosexuals - one each - should be married.

[musiclady]

True, and neither are teachers and prejudgment.   

Are you a teacher, MAC?

Cause you sure do attempt to do it a lot around here.

I wonder how many times you've told me how I should post and what words I should and should not use??  Kinda like you think you're an elementary teacher scolding a naughty pupil.  But that's OK, cause you're right and I'm wrong, and I need to be put in line, right?   :dx1:

You are nothing, if not amusing, however, and I have very much enjoyed this little game you've been playing here. 

I tire of it, though, and this will be my last post to you on this thread.  I'm actually discussing the issue with others who, unlike yourself,  are actually sticking to the subject.

Have a great afternoon,  teach.......  ^-^

[MACVSOG68]

I tire of it, though, and this will be my last post to you on this thread.   

 

[Paladin]

This is an absurd statement. The fact the Duggars have a large family and thus got their own TV show gave them, especially the father, a podium from which to voice their opinions doesn't mean they are a authoritative voice to anyone. Besides "your system" must refer to the TLC network which carries the show. Not exactly CBN, is it?

Your system elevated Josh Duggar to an authority level, to speak on behalf of evangelical Christianity's "popes and potentates," about morality, family values, marriage and homosexuality.

This is an equally absurd statement from MACVSOG68:
 

When told the polls were wrong I asked for any evidence to the contrary?  There was none offered.

In point of fact I pointed out that only THREE states approved SSM when the people were allowed to directly vote on the issue. So how does MACVSOG68 deal with this fact? Simply dismiss it:

I also recognize that since those votes, the people in general have come to accept SSM

and how does he know this? By people actually voting again? Not necessary, thank you. Rely on "polls"

Do you not think the polls should be a consideration absent any other evidence?

Polls which may be skewed, biased, loaded, invalid? Great way to run things. Simply great. Why should we even vote? Just inquire of the pollsters. After all they have never been shown to be wrong.

[truth_seeker]

Josh Duggar was elevated to director of anti-gay messaging for the FRC, Family Research Council, not by a network.

FRC is NOT a television network, but rather an advocacy organization for Christian Families and the values they espouse.

[DCPatriot]

Whew....that was close!     

Seems like, as the sun rises in the East, homosexual/gay agenda threads tend to raise blood pressures.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln....how'd you like the play?

Great thread!   

[MACVSOG68]

This is an equally absurd statement from MACVSOG68:

 

When told the polls were wrong I asked for any evidence to the contrary?  There was none offered.

 
In point of fact I pointed out that only THREE states approved SSM when the people were allowed to directly vote on the issue. So how does MACVSOG68 deal with this fact? Simply dismiss it:  and how does he know this? By people actually voting again? Not necessary, thank you. Rely on "polls"
Polls which may be skewed, biased, loaded, invalid? Great way to run things. Simply great. Why should we even vote? Just inquire of the pollsters. After all they have never been shown to be wrong.

There was a time when slavery was generally approved by many in the South.  I doubt today many would still vote for it.  When my state approved a ban on SSM, such marriages were greatly frowned upon in my state.  As most people see, acceptance of it began to turn around until today a majority no longer disapprove.  I suspect it's one reason the SCOTUS found that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry.  Timing is after all not altogether unimportant to the Court.

If all the polls are all being manipulated which is likely not the case, so then might the polls concerning gun rights and abortion, which liberals do not accept either.  Denial of reality isn't a conservative trait.

But the bottom line for me is, I want Republican candidates to recognize that putting gay marriage up as an issue would be appealing to a shrinking group of voters.  Nor would it address any of the major issues that are really tearing down our moral fabric. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

Barry Goldwater was a libertarian.

That said, I'll try to clarify my point (though I'm quite sure you're not interested).  We have Hindu friends who are moral and believe in family (mother, father, children).  I know moderate Muslims who are moral and believe in family (mother, father, children).  If you look at Asian culture (massive numbers of people in America) and they also believe in family (mother, father, children).

Valuing the nuclear family is not some sort of evangelical Christians only position.  It is the position of many who value structure in society and understand that the family is at the core of that structure.

Every other point you bring up in your desire to belittle Christians, and what you call a "literal" interpretation of the Scriptures is completely irrelevant to the point I have been making.

Morality is not the possession of Christians only, and there are many who practice morality outside of the Christian faith.

THAT is my point.

Are you serious?

Now you're rewriting history to accommodate your position and justify the SoCon take over of Conservatism?

Barry Goldwater is one of the founders of Modern Conservatism, along with Phyllis Schlafly, and William F. Buckley Jr.

Ronald Reagan was a conservative neophyte under Goldwater.

The fact that you see Goldwater as a libertarian says more about your own thepolitical positions than anything at all about Goldwater.


 

[Luis Gonzalez]

The problem with your position, Luis, is that you are looking at homosexual marriage as a micro-issue and not seeing it as part of the macro-problem.  I didn't even come close to implying that homosexual marriage alone would be the 'death of the Republic" (and again, you know it because you are intelligent, and read well).

There are a whole host of other moral issues involved, in addition to a greater host of political and economic issues involved, that are included in the long, long list of things that the radical left is doing to destroy this nation.  Your attempt to belittle our argument by over-simplifying it and reducing it to the point where we are all pretty much nutcases if we hold the position you claim we do, misses the entire point......which is that the radical left is destroying America.

The fact that homosexual marriage is currently the focus of discussion is because the radical left has made it so, and we are reacting to it.  It is not because it is the only thing going wrong in America, it is because it is part of a large number of things going wrong in America.  Those of us who seek a moral construct for society aren't goofy, Luis.  We're reflecting the understanding of the great intellects and character of those who founded this nation.  And we are not calling for this particular moral issue to be the focus of anyone's political campaign.  That argument, used repeatedly, is another straw dog of those who attempt to berate the valid arguments presented on this subject.

I hope that clears up some of your confusion....

The macro-problem is the moral decadence of heterosexuals, and that's what you want to ignore in order to point at the micro-problem and blame it for the decades-long decay of society.

Matthew 7:3 - And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

The radical left has settled the issue of SSM, and while you think it objectionable and an affront to God and morality in general, you'll get over it and come to accept it just as you've come to accept all other affronts to God and morality, such as no-fault divorce and multiple marriages (Matthew 19:9 - And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery), cohabitation, and out-of-wedlock children.

Playing God and passing judgement on others for their sins is a far easier thing to do than parenting, and we, as a primarily heterosexual society have failed miserably at parenting our children.

First rule of conservatism is to accept personal responsibility.

I'm not confused at all. I see you for exactly who and what you are.

[musiclady]

The macro-problem is the moral decadence of heterosexuals, and that's what you want to ignore in order to point at the micro-problem and blame it for the decades-long decay of society.

Matthew 7:3 - And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

The radical left has settled the issue of SSM, and while you think it objectionable and an affront to God and morality in general, you'll get over it and come to accept it just as you've come to accept all other affronts to God and morality, such as no-fault divorce and multiple marriages (Matthew 19:9 - And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery), cohabitation, and out-of-wedlock children.

Playing God and passing judgement on others for their sins is a far easier thing to do than parenting, and we, as a primarily heterosexual society have failed miserably at parenting our children.

First rule of conservatism is to accept personal responsibility.

I'm not confused at all. I see you for exactly who and what you are.

I'm sorry, Luis, but now you're just being contrarian.  You SAID you were "baffled," so I used the word 'confused' in response.  Don't be silly.

Now if you can continue to be serious, I'll continue the discussion....

The macro problem I was referring to was the radical left's attempt to take control of the country and destroy it.

The heterosexual issue is only a part of the overall issue, and I agree with you that we have a serious problem all around.  But it was the leftists' 'free love' movement that destroyed that aspect of morality as well as 'normalizing' abnormal sexual behavior.

IOW, we're in a big leftist mess, but sexuality is only a part of it, and homosexuality only a part of that part.

I repeat......... it is the LEFT who is focusing our attention on aberration from morality (quite successfully I might add).  We, on the right, are just responding to what the left is doing to destroy us.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'm sorry, Luis, but now you're just being contrarian.  You SAID you were "baffled," so I used the word 'confused' in response.  Don't be silly.

Now if you can continue to be serious, I'll continue the discussion....

The macro problem I was referring to was the radical left's attempt to take control of the country and destroy it.

The heterosexual issue is only a part of the overall issue, and I agree with you that we have a serious problem all around.  But it was the leftists' 'free love' movement that destroyed that aspect of morality as well as 'normalizing' abnormal sexual behavior.

IOW, we're in a big leftist mess, but sexuality is only a part of it, and homosexuality only a part of that part.

I repeat......... it is the LEFT who is focusing our attention on aberration from morality (quite successfully I might add).  We, on the right, are just responding to what the left is doing to destroy us.

I am not confused about the issue.

I am baffled at the depth of the hypocrisy by those who happen to make up the majority of the "problem" then blame the problem on others.

Personally, I find that an impossible thing to do.

[musiclady]

Are you serious?

Now you're rewriting history to accommodate your position and justify the SoCon take over of Conservatism?

Barry Goldwater is one of the founders of Modern Conservatism, along with Phyllis Schlafly, and William F. Buckley Jr.

Ronald Reagan was a conservative neophyte under Goldwater.

The fact that you see Goldwater as a libertarian says more about your own thepolitical positions than anything at all about Goldwater.


 

After he retired from the Senate, Goldwater often took “libertarian” positions on social issues such as abortion and gay rights, causing some conservatives to criticize and even ostracize him. In fact, however, there had always been two Goldwaters: the Russell Kirk–Edmund Burke conservative and the F. A. Hayek–Milton Friedman libertarian.

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, these two sides of Goldwater were generally in balance, but when the social issues of the 1970s and 1980s came to the fore, Goldwater often assumed a libertarian stance, extolling individual rights above almost all else. When the question of gays in the military came up, he wrote that “You don’t need to be ‘straight’ to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.”[23]

Of his libertarian comments about abortion, gay rights, the Religious Right, and similar issues, Phyllis Schlafly, the renowned First Lady of the Right, said: “Let him enjoy his retirement…. [His] legacy is the way the 27 million who braved the vitriol of Big Media in 1964, lived to grow into the 54 million that validated the Reagan Revolution.”[24]

Quoted from The Heritage Foundation.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/07/barry-m-goldwater-the-most-consequential-loser-in-american-politics

I'm not "rewriting history."

If you think The Heritage Foundation has a 'theopolitical' problem, then you'll just have to deal with your own issues.

On social issues, Goldwater was a libertarian.

That should please you, not vex you, Luis.   You're soul brothers with Goldwater. 

[musiclady]

I am not confused about the issue.

I am baffled at the depth of the hypocrisy by those who happen to make up the majority of the "problem" then blame the problem on others.

Personally, I find that an impossible thing to do.

I was clearing up your bafflement on a position you just happen to disagree with.

Everyone who disagrees with you isn't a hypocrite, Luis.  Some of us just have a different POV and aren't afraid of bullies who try to shut us down.

[MACVSOG68]

Whew....that was close!     

Seems like, as the sun rises in the East, homosexual/gay agenda threads tend to raise blood pressures.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln....how'd you like the play?

Great thread!   

Join the brouhaha...

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Great thread!   

Yes, indeed!

[DCPatriot]

Join the brouhaha...

No, MAC.   Nothing I can add to the quality of discussion here.  I've read it all, but truth be told it hurts my head.  LOL!

But I'm proud to think of you all, as 'family'.   MusicLady is a treasure.  And, so are you!  And Bigun too!  LOL!