I like that collective. but the issue here, is CPAC basically strong arming off a segment of voters who vote for less govt intrusion in the first place. stupid, foot shooting business. as since I just said business-while many conservatives worry about stuff like this-oops! you just lost a couple of extra freedoms. stay focused, group. :)

This is by far the best written article on the subject I've ever read. It seems to me the solution is simple: get the government out of the business of regulating unions between two adults, regardless of their sexual orientation. Rather than allowing gays to get legally married and actually use that word (which seems to make so many people uncomfortable), let's just get the government out of the business of granting marriage licenses. From here on out, let's just let everyone get a civil union. If you want to have a traditional marriage in the church, you could do that separately, but just for legal purposes as far as property sharing, economics, the right to make medical decisions for your partner, etc., let everybody get a civil union. Gay or straight, it's the same legal document and confers the same rights.

it would also be interesting to get other opinions. I have no supporting statistics to bring to the discussion. but about families splitting up, whether the children are adopted by one of the partners or both or not, I see dissolution of partnerships/marriages higher in couples where both spouses are working outside the home. This is due to several factors, but primary is economic(tax burden). This adds stress, decreases cohesiveness and confuses emotional and care giving responsibilities in the family. it can be done successfully, but it is harder. Children end up spending more time with other adults than their own parents so continuity of values are easily thrown off track. We can go on here, but that is my drift.

I'd have to do a little digging to get the real stats, but I seem to recall that gay relationships are considered long if they last a decade. If the attraction is purely physical, I'd say this is the common trait even amoung straight people. Relationships, friendships specifically, which then migrates into long marriages are built on shared values, so if the relationship is built on only sexual motivations it is bound to decline. In typical marriages between a man and a woman the marriage might stay together because the couple no longer have shared values amoung each other, but have the shared value of the children they created--so they may keep a marriage together for the sake of the children. In gay families where the child must be adopted or obtained from another source, the biological element is missing, so the gay couple is most likely to abandon the family responsibility more often once the sign stimuli of their sexual attraction wears off and the values they share with their partner subsides over time. I see the progressive push to advance gay marriage and make it such an issue as an indirect way to spread the blob of government in even more ways. Gays will not benefit from being able to marry once the stigma of the practice is removed.

This is purely hypothetical, and is based on my observations. I'm sure somebody has studied the trends more scientifically and I'm sure the real facts are similar to my observations. The cost of all this is that the marriage is a legal union and anything legal involves courts, and lawyers. Therefor this creates another layer of intrusion into the rights of individuals no matter what their sexual desires are instead of giving them freedom as they proclaim it will do.

have you seen stats on gay, long term partner situations? The only reason that someone feels they can easily "swap out partners" is if they are not in a long term agreement in the first place, which would mean property and children might be shared. I understand the position of those who are not in favor of calling it marriage(it's not that big of an issue to me). it's not about denying unions; more, it does not fit the definition. Words have meaning. But to form civil unions, go for it.
systemic problems involving rulings in divorce, custody is a dang shame. but that's a separate issue, in my opinion

My very conservative senator Rob Portman just came out in favor of gay marriage. I have a lot of mixed feelings about it. I don't like government being involved in any relationship, even traditional marriage. In doing so they get to inject themselves into families during divorces and all kinds of messes, and I can't stand it. Divorces have been one of the biggest contributers to growth of government since courts have regulated fairness in dividing up property. This just makes an even bigger mess. Every time a gay partner decides they want to swap out lovers, courts will be called in to divide up the property from the civil union.

It's not the sex that is the problem. People can do what they want. But when government grows to regulate the behavior, it is a problem. And you can bet that courts everywhere are licking their chops to conduct court cases sorting out the property and lives of lovers who decide that the rebellion of their love no longer sustains the reality of daily living. No wonder its the hot topic in politics almost everytime we turn on the television. Lawyers want the business.

I agree with the article.The alienation business is ridiculous. But tell me, in your opinion why they would choose a separate pac just for conservative gays? In my mind, acceptance is a heck of alot easier if one focuses on issues that bring people together and not proclaiming sexual preference, as in "goProud". It is not the basis for beginning a friendship. am I missing something here?