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

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “A Conservative View on Non-Conforming Sexuality: Part I ”.

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.