Post: #1

According to Breitbart, Paul Singer, Dan Loeb, Seth Klarman, and Cliff Asness are pushing the party to abandon its traditional views on marriage.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...-marriage/

Quote:The American Unity Fund – financed by some of the GOP’s biggest donors — has launched what Politico calls “a well-organized, behind-the-scenes effort to lobby convention delegates who will draw up the platform,” which they intend will include an accommodation for same-sex marriage.

“We are working to ensure that each and every delegate is empowered to vote their conscience and truly craft an inclusive Republican Party platform,” said Jerri Ann Henry, who is leading the organization’s convention campaign. “We need to be inclusive.”

Besides being ultra wealthy Wall Street investors, the four all are Jewish. One of whom (Singer), has a history of publishing anti-Christian propaganda.

This would destroy the Republican party.

Post: #2

Besides this being cowardly and immoral, it is also very shortsighted. Even fucking Bernie Sanders is not enough of a SJW to satisfy the born-to-be-offended crowd, what makes these arrogant fools think that they can compete?

Post: #3

HCE,

They don't want to compete!

They seek only to fracture, to destroy.

A "officially" fractured Republican party is what they want. In doing so, they break the Trump - and to a lesser extent, Cruz - voters off from the socially liberal Cuckservatives.

Gay marriage is a decent wedge since it's the virtue signalling issue for these type of registered Recucklicans and assorted liberals. Remember: These are the types that don't see effects of illegal immigration in their neighborhood other than melanin level of their current landscapers crew compared to thirty years ago. They all have a gay cousin, uncle, aunt, kid, or whatever... it's more personal.

Trump's got so much game that, while they'll promote a "Trump war on women," they're also going to make him out to be Mr. Anti-Gay. The combination might be their two front assault to get those women out in force for the Dem (and/or Cuck, if it goes to a brokered convention) candidate.

We're biased, I'm biased, but this shit is all to:
Stop a person who self-funds from being Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces (an underrated concern for the establishment)
Keep the flooding the country with illegal immigrants
To ensure that the working class can't sniff a manufacturing job ever again.

^The enemy within, indeed...

Post: #4

This would be the end of conservatism as we know it.

Very disappointing - you'd think with all the attention fag marriage gets that homos make up 30-40% of the population but in reality they represent maybe 2%. It's crazy.

Post: #5

(((Donors)))

Post: #6

I actually agree with Ben Shapiro on this: government should get out of the business of marriage. Period. The ship to try and and enshrine marriage as one-man-one-woman into the Constitution has set sail a while ago now and the best social conservatives can do is do an "end run" around the issue.

http://youtu.be/1rQ_mphb7HU

Post: #7

Except marriage is man/woman, the root of the word was always about a union between two different things. That didn't change until LGBT degenerates decided to start bitching and whining.

Post: #8

This country has way more pressing issues such as low employment, bad trade agreememts, and a disaster in the Middle East. Wish whoever gets the nod for the nomination just say fuck it let each state decide for themselves. Legalized or not it its not going to change anyones behavior. Hell, once gays start getting divorced maybe that wil help facilitate change to our stupid divorce laws.

Post: #9

This doesn't work:



NEITHER DOES GAY MARRIAGE

Post: #10

The proper platform in my opinion would be leave it to the States, more pressing issues at hand.

The Republican suicide would be official with a pro gay marriage policy.

They had no answers barring some individual politicians (such as Jeff Sessions.) Trump comes along with answers but without being owned by the puppet masters and they go all in on stopping him.

They've been stringing people along for years with social issues while letting the country descend into chaos.

They've got nothing if they slip on abortion, gay marriage and things of that nature that while I agree are utterly degenerate and worth fighting tooth and nail are less important than the border, trade, and spending trillions on being world police and funding the third world population explosion with food and medicine. (On that note the third world needs a hard dose of reality: pop out 10 kids and you starve.)

Post: #11

I disagree with the "leave it to the states" message only because it concedes defeat. We would never consider such a thing of pedophiles wanted to be married, or people who bang animals, or people who fall in love with pop tarts - because they're mentally ill. Homosexuality is a mental illness, I don't care what leftists did to the DSM.

Post: #12

(04-05-2016 06:10 PM)Clockwerk Wrote:  I actually agree with (((Ben Shapiro))) on this

(04-05-2016 04:38 PM)captain_shane Wrote:  (((Donors)))

And people wonder why the tribe always gets kicked out.

Post: #13

(04-05-2016 06:10 PM)Clockwerk Wrote:  I actually agree with Ben Shapiro on this: government should get out of the business of marriage.

I agree, this is something I've been advocating for years now. It would eliminate a lot of problems, debates, and headaches, that surround marriage. Anyone will be able to say they're married to whoever and whatever they want, no paper work or government intervention needed.

Post: #14

(04-05-2016 12:56 PM)bigrich Wrote:  Besides being ultra wealthy Wall Street investors, the four all are Jewish. One of whom (Singer), has a history of publishing anti-Christian propaganda.

Let's be fair here.

David Singer, a Jew, changed his tune after he found out his son is gay:

Quote:The biggest donor in the 2014 race, Singer's LGBT activism is due to the orientation of his son, Andrew. The elder Singer has created at least two groups dedicated to protecting the state of Israel, loosening immigration laws, and expanding the role of government in promoting the LGBT community's goals.

Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/top-go...arco-rubio

Dick Cheney, a United Methodist, changed his tune after he found out his daughter is gay:

Quote:That statement makes it clear that Cheney, an on-the-record supporter of gay marriage, is on Team Liz. His words echo hers; she told Tapper that, "I love my sister and her family and have always tried to be compassionate towards them. I believe that is the Christian way to behave." The condescending reference to compassion that both use is likely an effort to explain to a conservative electorate what Heather and Mary saw as happiness.

Source: http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/11/...ars/71721/

Support of gay marriage crosses ethnic and religious lines in the Republican party.

It may have more to do with people like Dick Cheney and Paul Singer prioritizing support of their children over towing the party line.

Not everything is an ethno-centric battle in the United States.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, the thing with marriage that bothered me is that the LGBT groups used the battle as a way to attack religious people rather than focus on amending the law.

We shouldn't even be using the word "marriage", which has a clear religious context. We should be using the words "civil union" and I believe that civil unions should be open to everyone.

Marriage is for a man and a women, civil unions should be open to other orientations since the government does not follow religious doctrine.

The gay rights thing has always been framed the wrong way and it is a shame it had to be framed this way.

Post: #15

(04-06-2016 11:40 AM)username Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 06:10 PM)Clockwerk Wrote:  I actually agree with Ben Shapiro on this: government should get out of the business of marriage.

I agree, this is something I've been advocating for years now. It would eliminate a lot of problems, debates, and headaches, that surround marriage. Anyone will be able to say they're married to whoever and whatever they want, no paper work or government intervention needed.

My thoughts exactly. The government shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all. Giving tax breaks to people that are married is what opened up gay marriage to begin with. I'm not a big fan of gays, but it technically is discrimination to allow certain groups to benefit from marriage and not others.

Post: #16

Eh, gay marriage is more of a smokescreen to keep the masses arguing and divided while the 1% rapes the economy. I don't really care about gay marriage.

Post: #17

(04-06-2016 04:46 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  Not everything is an ethno-centric battle in the United States.

Post: #18

(04-06-2016 04:57 PM)captain_shane Wrote:  My thoughts exactly. The government shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all. Giving tax breaks to people that are married is what opened up gay marriage to begin with. I'm not a big fan of gays, but it technically is discrimination to allow certain groups to benefit from marriage and not others.

They could've just made civil unions equal-in-law to marriage, and not codified the nomenclature of a religious sacrament into civil law. Insofar as the religious language of "marriage" was codified, it could have been reversed and sorted to avoid stepping on anyone's toes.

No, this was about picking a fight because there was much more at stake than the ability of homosexuals to enjoy the same civil rights in legal union that married heterosexuals do.

If they had been after a solution that would have satisfied everyone more or less, the language would have been separated from law and those that wanted to get "married" in a church would simultaneously receive parallel legal status to all married persons in the law - but receiving civil union status would not imply a religiously sanctified marriage. Religious status as "married" would then fall to the autonomous oversight of each denomination, with no semantic nor legal confusion that would require churches to view homosexual couples equal in status to religiously married couples. As of now, married is married and there is nothing in the nomenclature that parses two religiously differing yet equal legal status arrangements.

This would have avoided this entire issue for all except for those who believe in religious dominionism, and they are an extremely small minority with almost no voice except when the media decides to focus on them.

This wasn't about equal rights, but re-defining a religious sacrament (thus corrupting religion and sticking it to the religious) as well as changing the core secular legal tests of marriage. Thus, eradicating the original meaning and thus eradicating the institution. All Churches will eventually be under intense pressure, similar to disavowing segregation, to redefine their religious concept of "marriage" simply because the homosexuals refused to have their unions be called anything different.

How, exactly, are homosexual "marriages" legally consummated?

When, exactly, is there legally defined adultery in a homosexual marriage?

Homosexual marriage will change the meaning and nature of marriage.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstth...production

Post: #19

Quote:We shouldn't even be using the word "marriage", which has a clear religious context. We should be using the words "civil union" and I believe that civil unions should be open to everyone.

Except that they desperately want to be perceived as "normal."

Quote:The government shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all.

The government is firmly in the business of welfare, agree?

Quote:Eh, gay marriage is more of a smokescreen to keep the masses arguing and divided while the 1% rapes the economy. I don't really care about gay marriage.

Well, you may be interested to know what Marx and Engels thought the foundation of private property was.

Post: #20

(04-06-2016 11:18 PM)Different T Wrote:  

Quote:Eh, gay marriage is more of a smokescreen to keep the masses arguing and divided while the 1% rapes the economy. I don't really care about gay marriage.

Well, you may be interested to know what Marx and Engels thought the foundation of private property was.

I'm guessing it wasn't gay marriage.

Post: #21

Homos weren't discriminated against before the scotus ruling on marriage, they simply chose a lifestyle in which they could not enjoy the benefits of normal marriages because they aren't normal. I wouldn't be able to ask for the government to recognize my marriage with a table, it doesn't work that way.

I'm not saying the idea of getting government out of marriage is necessarily bad - but I respect politicians who take a hardline stance on this issue despite it not being the most politically expedient position.

Post: #22

Let's for a moment disregard this instance of ethnic coincidence and find a solution:

1. Government keeps its nose out of marriage and both religious and secular institutions are free to marry and not marry whom they please.
2. Marital status does not confer any government benefits, e.g. no tax cuts.
3. Stable two-parent families are rewarded for reproduction and remaining stable two-parent families.
4. Families seeking these benefits are not allowed no-fault divorces, or are financially sanctioned.

And this shows the complete sham of modern conservatism. Two-parent families are essential to stable and functional societies, it's the mission of the left to attack and destroy these family units and promote alternatives, and in response the conservatives have done absolutely nothing. Instead of advocating for traditional values, with plenty of research to back that up, their movement intellectuals want to 'reach out' to single mothers because they buy into the frame of the left: the so-called war on women.

What do you want to conserve? Stable families, social cohesion, safe communities and moral fiber? None of that. Cultural rot is everywhere and they remained silent. Now many people start to realize why that is, and that these ethnic coincidences are not ethnic coincidences at all.

Post: #23

It's already been legalized by the Supreme Court.

So what purpose would this serve at all other than satisfying the social justice crowd just for the pure hell of it?

This is one of the basic trends I notice with SJW activists; they're primarily just motivated by "feelings" and enjoy pushing for things which accomplish nothing but make them "feel" like they're helping. The zillions of meaningless "Change.org" petitions being one example.

Post: #24

(04-10-2016 01:20 AM)EDantes Wrote:  It's already been legalized by the Supreme Court.

So what purpose would this serve at all other than satisfying the social justice crowd just for the pure hell of it?

This is one of the basic trends I notice with SJW activists; they're primarily just motivated by "feelings" and enjoy pushing for things which accomplish nothing but make them "feel" like they're helping. The zillions of meaningless "Change.org" petitions being one example.

They're also obsessed with virtue signalling to their Starbucks friends about how trendy and liberal they are while sipping on their faggot coffee drinks and whining about capitalism on their iPhones. Modern day liberalism is a cult, they need to espouse an anti-human, anti-male, anti-family worldview to remain in good graces with their cult leaders.

Post: #25

I don't care if two adults want to get gay married. Why gays want to get hitched under the fucked up US legal system is beyond me.

However, I am strongly against gay people being able to adopt and raise children; as well as the push by the mainstream in making being gay as "normal" and acceptable among children. Every child should ideally have a male and female role model; each genders provide unique things that no gay couple can EVER replicate. There was a great article I read one time by an adult woman raised by gay parents that explained in very honest detail that while she loved and respected her "parents", she felt like she was deprived of certain things that only a traditional family could have provided. Because of this, she was opposed to their lifestyle or at the very least, gay parents raising children. Suffice to say, the libtards came out in full force against her.

The problem with the current gay marriage debate is gays want to be treated as equals compared to heterosexuals on all levels both legally and culturally. They simply cannot accept just being two consenting adults living an alternative lifestyle and leaving kids out of it. If they as a group would accept a fair compromise and leave at that, I could live with that. But a full concession by the GOP at this stage of the game is basically validating homosexuals as equals to heterosexuals across the board; which leads down a slippery slope to all kinds of bad stuff. This is unacceptable.

It should always be kept in mind: being strictly gay is NOT natural for a species and should NEVER be treated as such by society to the point where we overwhelm children with propaganda telling them that being a fag is perfectly normal.

If anyone every asks you: "How is it unnatural? What makes it not normal?"

Tell them: "Well, if everyone went gay right now, the human race would be completely wiped out in less than a century. Does that sound natural and normal to you?"