I am going to take a guess and say that it was bias taken in from the get-go. People leave you alone for the most part here, the economy is good and cost of living is low.

Unless you're an obnoxious, big-mouthed city-slicker liberal, people are nice and friendly, as well.

LOL...you want to know something funny about what you just said? I was born and raised in Wyoming - the least populated state and very conservative. You know...like Dick Cheney...

Perhaps this is why I was so turned off by the seeming lack of substance in Dallas and the ignorance of driving in Amarillo and the big city lights and pollution of Houston.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

They're not! Rather, they're "hellbent" on stopping the Homosexual Lobby from redefining what society has always defined marriage to be. Furthermore, those conservatives are winning on that issue, with 90% of the states having now passed legislation which halts the Homosexual Lobby dead in its tracks, and which stops the Homosexual Lobby from imposing its will upon the majority.

If your biggest problems with a state are that people can't drive in the snow, and there are big cities, you have your priorities mixed up.

Society does not define reality, my little communist. Nor is the "homosexual lobby" seeking to "impose its will on the majority" when all they want is to have their own private unions have the same rights and moral recognition (by the state) as yours do.

You are free to not recognize them all you want, but unsurprisingly, you do not have the initiative to. Instead, your tribe must get together and scream until Big Brother frowns disapprovingly at homosexuals.

[bold added to illustrate the self-contradictory claim by Fearless Leader]

If the State "recognizes" it, it's not a "private" ceremony.

And yes, Society does indeed define things. Marriage, for example.

I don't think that it should be recognized by the state, but if it does, the state should not have the right to discriminate on the unions.

However, as long as its going to be a public thing, is it alright if everyone watches you and your wife having sex? To make sure you're handling your public union correctly.

I'm afraid, my little communist, that marriage is not "defined" by anyone. It simply is what it is.

Perhaps the point is that the state should not define private institutions. Are you a "small government" conservative, or do you throw those principles out the window in favor of communism provided the state enforces your particular preferences?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Just so.

And scratch a conservative and you will always find a socialist. He just wants to regulate different things than a democrat does.

Not only should The State have the right; The State does have the right.

Marriage is defined by Society; i.e. The State.

Marriage isn't a "private institution", it's a public institution. That's inherent in the fact that there are always witnesses to a marriage.

No, it doesn't. It has no moral right to go nosing into business that does not concern the proper roles of government in defending the individual rights of its citizens.

Ahh! So now society = the state?

I knew you were a communist.

But regardless, no. Marriage is an objective thing, the definition does not change throughout the years. Merely who/what is allowed to get married changes.

So? The fact that there is does not mean that there must be.

Why should marriage be a public institution? Namely, why should "society" (ie, THE GOVERNMENT) have the right to socially engineer its people by forbidding them certain activities that do not violate anyone's property rights?

Wrong again. The ultimate role of government is to defend society, not the individual's supposed "rights". Furthermore, the government has the moral right to define (and regulate) marriage.

Okay, you're a collectivist, then.

We have nothing to talk about on this subject. You are an evil man who does not recognize that the individual is the only unit that actually exists in society; I am one who recognizes this fact, that governments are created to protect men, not societies.

Jefferson would be spinning in his grave at that pronouncement.

But my goal is accomplished: it is simple to see. "Conservatives" aren't pro-individual, pro-free-market, or even anti-socialist. They just disagree with the democrats on what, specifically, should be regulated, and how much.