-->

Conservative Daily News - The best news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..

A Conservative View on Non-Conforming Sexuality: Part I

The Misconception of Intolerance

Conservatives have been mistakenly branded intolerant of LGBTQ’s (Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans, Queer). This is a notion that is far from the truth. Conservatives are not intolerant. We are steadfast in Bible based, natural order, beliefs. The writings of the Bible suggest that it is un-natural and an unacceptable practice to lay with the same sex or dress as the alternate sex. Now, I’m not religious (yes, non-religious Conservatives exist), but I do believe in the Bible and God. I as a Conservative subscribe to the notion that there is a natural order and that the lifestyles of LGBTQ’s go against that order. Now, that being said, it’s none of my business what lifestyle a person chooses to live nor is it anyone elses business what lifestyle I choose to live. I welcome anyone into my circle who shares the same societal values and political views; I’m not concerned with whom they share their bed. I’m not the one to judge, that’s God’s job and who’s to say he thinks I’m doing a good job with my life. I may be at the top of his judgement list.

As for the political aspects, the only issues we as Conservative have with “Gay Rights” (in my opinion) are terminology, politically correct policy (as oppose to majority rule policy) and abuse of policy. Right to marriage is all about terminology. “Marriage” is a sacred oath between a man and woman, as per the Bible verses. A government sanctioned “Civil Union” isn’t in itself a problem. The problem is the abuse of policy. Once the government puts generic/general policy in place to appease a group of people who can’t be narrowed to gender or ethnicity, the lines become very grey and too many people pounce on the opportunity to take advantage. Let’s take into consideration, welfare. Welfare began in the 1930′s with ever so noble intentions. The Great Depression put millions out of work and there grew a desperate cry for assistance. President (FDR) Roosevelt responded with Social Security and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Unfortunately, the original intent of these programs has been lost in a web of legislation which just muddles the system, it’s original intent and allows abuse of the system to run rampant. It’s a knee jerk reaction to an economic problem, run amuck! The system is totally out of control and wrought with abuse.

Continue reading on Examiner.com A conservative view on non-conforming sexuality: Part I – Chicago Conservative Issues | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/conservative-issues-in-chicago/my-conservative-view-on-non-conforming-sexuality-part-i#ixzz1RI2fmctt

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. This is due to our approach that citizens have a voice, not only the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

Tags: , , ,

Comments (0)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Chris BeHanna says:

    Do not presume that you speak for all conservatives. Stupidity such as yours gives conservatism a bad name. A written mythology such as your Bible is no basis for legislation.

    “You do not have to be straight to serve your country. You just have to shoot straight.” — Barry Goldwater

    • Marian Stallings says:

      Hi Chris,

      I didn’t mean to offend. If you don’t believe in the Bible then you can consider it “mythical” but for those of us who believe in the Bible it is not a mythical book. It is indeed the word of God. I’m just trying to explain where the dis-enchantment with the term “Same Sex Marriage” and this particular lifestyle comes from. As I stated in the article, I don’t judge. It’s not my place. I have no problem with “Civil Unions” just as long as it’s not government sanctioned. Government tends to complicate things that should be fairly simple by regulating/legislating them. I don’t have any problems with same sex relationships. I don’t personally support the idea, but that simply means, I’m not interested in participating in that type of lifestyle. I don’t care what anyone else does just as long as it doesn’t affect my personal life and I can assure you that it does not.

      You mentioned the military in your post. My son’s a Marine (well not yet but really soon!). I could care less who’s fighting side by side with him just as long as they keep each other alive. I don’t subscribe to the notion of don’t ask don’t tell. I think it’s a personal choice. If someone decides that he wants to announce his sexuality, fine. I personally don’t think it’s necessary to announce sexuality but I may feel differently if I had to be specific about my own.

      So Chris, don’t be vexed. You strive to be heard and understood, I am the same. We can disagree and still be friends or at least civil towards one another. It was simply commentary.
      I’ll be posting Part II soon, perhaps you will get a better understanding of where I’m going with this 3 part series. I hope you’ll read it. I look forward to hearing your opinion on it :)

      • Chris BeHanna says:

        Oh, I know where your disenchantment comes from. It does not make it any less nonsensical. Belief in a religious tract is not a foundation for anything, really. You could as well cite Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, and be on the same footing. To put a fine point on it, some people believe in Sharia Law. Why is there belief any more or less justifiable or persuasive than your own?

        I will agree with you that the government should not be involved. It is none of the government’s business who marries whom, so long as they are consenting adults. In fact, there is a colorable argument that same sex marriage STRENGTHENS traditional marriage rather than weakens it: by providing the legal benefits of marriage to same sex couples, one then does not have to enshrine those benefits in law to unmarried partners (as is often done), which means that even heterosexual shack-ups cannot obtain those benefits without marriage (as they can in such states).

        In the end, civilly, marriage is merely a matter of contract. Government shouldn’t have any hand other than providing a means to enforce the terms of the contract, which should be able to take any form to which the parties agree.