Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Foremost among those institutions is the American family. It is the foundation of civil society, and the cornerstone of the family is natural marriage, the union of one man and one woman. Its daily lessons — cooperation, patience, mutual respect, responsibility, self-reliance — are fundamental to the order and progress of our Republic. Strong families, depending upon God and one another, advance the cause of liberty by lessening the need for government in their daily lives. Conversely, as we have learned over the last five decades, the loss of faith and family life leads to greater dependence upon government. That is why Republicans formulate public policy, from taxation to education, from healthcare to welfare, with attention to the needs and strengths of the family.
So anyone saying the GOP is not anti-LGBT needs to go read what they stand for.
I've always been an R for the financial aspect, and never agreed with their social stance. They've just gone off the deep end though, and I will not register as an R again.
Your post is nonsense.
Just, because you are pro, say Corvettes, doesn't mean you are anti, say White Vipers, or Red Ferraris or Silver Rolls. Your "logic" that because they are pro-family must mean they are anti homosexual or transexual is irrational, utterly. Just because I love Scotch doesn't mean I hate Irish, or Japanese Single Malt, or even Bourbon or Canadian, or Tennessee or Rye.
Saying that being pro-family is "off the deep end" is, in and of itself, "off the deep end". Hope you can tread water.
Allow me to further demonstrate the absurdity of your stated position.
The GOP supports the traditional "natural", i.e 1 man, 1 woman family as the foundation of the civil society. You described this position (based your ludicrous strawman that they are anti homo/transexuals) as "off the deep end".
In your absolutist "either/or" stance, it must be concluded, therefore, that in your opinion, it is the homo/transexual community that is, in fact, the true foundation of the civil society.
Is that actually your position, because based on your statements, there seems to be no other conclusion to be drawn?
BTW, I am NOT an R either, but NOT because they support the foundation, no check that, the bedrock of our society, i.e. the traditional family, but because they were (until the recent confirmation of the new Justice), nothing but can kickers, who were more interested in kicking the can down the road, than actually fixing the road. Like the guy who emerges from a 2 or 3 hour firefight with a stone-cold rifle and full ammo belt.
However, if the regeneration of their spine continues, I may register as an R (currently independent with no political affiliation).
I am really concerned that our country is going in the wrong direction. Can you imagine how many lives will be destroyed if such things were to be overturned?
I don't have an issue with 1st trimester abortions, only those in the 2nd and 3rd trimester.
You should be imagining how many lives will be enriched with the existence of those people who can't be murdered in the 2nd or 3rd trimester.
The lives of homosexuals will not be destroyed if they cannot marry.
I generally think of myself as a liberal person, but with a libertarian streak. I wouldn't have a problem at all with individual states ruling against same-sex marriage. I do, think, that it's good for society to recognize committed, long-term relationships, and so I would at least prefer to see civil union and domestic partnership options for same-sex couples rather than to outlaw their legal unions altogether.
Scratch the hide of many,many (MOST?) Republicans ( as some of the polls on here have shown) and you'll find that there's no real objection to abortion on demand(within understandable limits)
Just a big deal with one issue voters
Can you imagine how many lives will be destroyed if such things were to be overturned?
Has abortion solved the problems it was intended to solve? Or has it actually made them worse?
Last month my sister was worried that my niece was pregnant. And I'll be honest with you, my immediate thought was that she should have an abortion. Why? Because the guy is a creep. And having a kid with a creep is about the worst possible thing for everyone.
I don't think much can be done about abortions until people stop finding themselves in a position where abortion feels like the only way out.
But most of the conditions that apparently justify having an abortion(single-motherhood, bad environment, mental-illness, etc), have all gotten worse since Roe v. Wade, not better.
So what is the real problem? And how do we solve it?
The lives of homosexuals will not be destroyed if they cannot marry.
Not destroyed, but watch the first episode of If These Walls Could Talk 2, and you'll see how it could cause a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering. Legal issues aside, though, are you prepared to say the same thing to straight people? That they should give up that privilege because their lives "will not be destroyed"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
