Comment by Darcy after the article sums it up nicely:

"Social conservatives are the moral and religious people who present the only obstacle to the Constitution’s complete dismantling by radical egalitarians. And for that we are rebuked, chastised, and shunned. In our place, libertarians, leftists, right-liberals, and you name it, have determined that a new order must emerge, an order that worships the individual and his desires above everything.

And we’re supposed to mind our own business? Really? You social progressives are the interlopers, not us. And what I’ll never understand is how anyone can make a rational argument for homosexual unions when to do so flies in the face of Darwin’s survival of the fittest. Such unions cannot even make it to the next generation.

It would seem that we would be derelict to adopt your MYOB advice."

I find it particularly strange that Roger would use the word ´´fecund´´ when referring to ´´same sex´´ anything.

Nominate for a must read. I think this conversation is going to be very interesting, here on L.com.

I abhor abortion. Our govt is beyond hypocritical when it comes to laws protecting the eggs of endangered birds, say, and protecting the life of the unborn human. But I also believe that the abortion argument in and of itself has become incredibly polarizing, to the point that those who support abortion rights do so purely on the legal points. They are so caught up in the vitriol that they don´t see the real issue.

I have taken the position when asked that I will not primarily argue the religious side anymore, or whether it should be legal. I state that I am pro life. I argue the hypocrisy of protecting one unborn species over another. I ask why we protect those birds´ eggs? It´s just an egg, why protect it. It inevitably leads to a deeper discussion. I´ve stopped worrying about whether I´ve convinced them. Instead, I want to make them think.

He wants social conservatives to leave the ´divisive´ issues at home. You know what? We´re not the ones bringing the issue up! Did he not see the abortionpalooza that was the DNC convention? It was all abortion, all the time. Libs told us for years to get out of the bedrooms of homosexuals, but the homosexuals won´t leave us alone. Now I have to be tolerant of everything they do.

Lib journOlists are the ones who only ask conservative candidates about abortion. When did a lib journOlister ask Obama about voting 4 times in favor of infanticide?

Simon is naive if he thinks this will go away if we just sit down and shut up.

I really couldn´t care less about the gay marriage issue except for one point. With gay marriage legal, we will be prohibited from telling children that gay marriage and traditional marriage are not equivalent.

The PC police will be out in full force ready to penalize teachers, doctors, coaches, and any other community members that dare to differentiate the two.

Piffle. The majority want free stuff! Abortions or gay marriage add up to a pinch of sour owl doo doo in comparison.

I agree with the author´s principal argument that moral issues should be outside the purview of government. The whole ´Pro-life/Pro-choice´ issue is a glaring example. ´Pro-choice´ isn´t about ´choice´ at all; it´s about abortion on demand, without remorse. But ´Pro-life´ isn´t about ´life´ either; it´s about government interference in personal moral issues. Forcing someone by the force of law to make the ´right´ choice does nothing to uplift their morality.

When I was growing up, it was considered to be a shame to talk about abortion, a shame to be pregnant out of wedlock, a shame to be ´knocked up´, a shame to be shacked up. It was a moral horror to be involved with homosexuality in any way. Perhaps we need to make our arguments in the realm of religion and morality, rather than by governmental edict.

But don´t you see? We Republicans have earned the frowning face of disapproval the Dems and media successfully charged to us. We don´t like Hispanics(legal or not), gays, divorce, even minimal abortion laws, anyone collecting food stamps or borrowing money for student loans, the long-term unemployed and on and on and on.

We must change the way we are perceived by the average voter. There are lots of people who have to (or believe they might in the future) get some help from somebody (feds, state, parents) at some time in their lives. We frighten those people by giving them the impression we would take all that help away. And we anger them by patronizing them.

Why can´t we stick to the original intent of the tea party movement, reducing the size of government and national fiscal responsibility?

There is no prig as self-righteous as a "moderate" prig.

All laws reflect morality, the question is who´s? The laws of a society are both a reflection of the people, and standards to guide their actions. Unfortunately, many people today believe, "If its legal, it must be moral."

Without the moral underpinning of a religious society we have devolved into the situation we now face. How long will individual liberties last without acknowledging that it is God who bestows those rights? How long can a just nation survive without the most basic of God´s precepts being missing from its canon of law?

As to the abortion issue: Today the majority in the Pro-Life movement understands that Roe v. Wade will never be overturned, nor do they advocate such a position. That is only how the Left defines us. We accept that legal abortion is the law of the land, but we do not accept that our tax dollars should fund murder. We also advocate and support the life choice for pregnant women through over 3,000 Life clinics in the country. We pray and work that, although abortion remains "legal", it is no longer the default "choice" of the mothers AND the fathers. We can end abortion in America without making it illegal. For more information check out the website for 40 Days for Life.

Darwinian success is boiled down to one simple concept... passing on your own genes to as many offspring as possible. With that in mind, I say, go ahead libs, kill your children. Hook up with your own gender so that you´ll never procreate.

Maybe there ARE too many people, so whose children should we allow to be eliminated or prevented? People who guide, nurture, and protect their kids, or child-abandoning, abusive, egoistic parasites who have no sense of responsibility?

Abortion and gay marriage not not just religious issues. If they were, wouldn´t gay marriage be legal in countries like China? And secular Europe has far more restrictive abortion laws than the US. Atheists and non-religious people claim to still have moral principles. What is the moral principle that would allow someone to abort a fetus because it will have Down Syndrome or some other genetic defect? Or because it is female? How is it moral to have an abortion at 8.5 months into the pregnancy when it is immoral--and criminal--to kill at baby at the moment of birth? And who is imposing their views on whom? Roe v. Wade makes it impossible for the moral issues even to be debated, since state are forbidden from restricting abortions.

Ahhh #9-Post of the Day!