[quote]Makavali wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Because the best situation for a child is a loving father and mother and when all other things are equal this is the situation that should get precedence.
At the very least, I agree with this. No amount of Political correctness will stop a child from needing both a Male AND Female presence in the developing stages of life.
But what happen when the gay couple want to adopt? There are many unwanted babies out there in need of a loving stable home.[/quote]
I have no problem with them adopting but I think a decent heterosexual couple should have legal precedence.
I really don’t know how many babies are in need of adoption in this country. I know quite a few people that have traveled to Eastern Europe, South America and Asia to adopt unwanted babies. I don’t know a single person that has adopted an American baby.
The liberals do have a point when they say conservatives should care just as much about out-of-wedlock births and divorce laws as they do about gay marriage.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
The liberals do have a point when they say conservatives should care just as much about out-of-wedlock births and divorce laws as they do about gay marriage.[/quote]
Most of us do, most of support couples counseling before. And doing everything you can to try to save the relationship.
One key difference with those, people still need to be cared for and supported.
You don’t need to be married to be cared for. For your community to show that they still support you as a person even if they disagree with what you are doing.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
They want preferential treatment under the law because of a lifestyle choice.[/quote]
After all of our discussion, I can’t believe you are still pushing this line. Gays don’t want preferential treatment. We pay the same taxes and want the same state/federal benefits for committing our lives to the person we love.
[quote]The will of the people is the will of the people - which is the way it should be.
[/quote]
Funny how you say this, yet are so upset that Obama won the election. If the will of the people is always paramount, shouldn’t you be celebrating Obama’s victory?
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
The liberals do have a point when they say conservatives should care just as much about out-of-wedlock births and divorce laws as they do about gay marriage.[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
They want preferential treatment under the law because of a lifestyle choice.
After all of our discussion, I can’t believe you are still pushing this line. Gays don’t want preferential treatment. We pay the same taxes and want the same state/federal benefits for committing our lives to the person we love.
The will of the people is the will of the people - which is the way it should be.
Funny how you say this, yet are so upset that Obama won the election. If the will of the people is always paramount, shouldn’t you be celebrating Obama’s victory?
[/quote]
Most of the people I know that voted for Obama did not vote for Obama, but against the economy,
Actually now that they stopped to think about I would say probably about 50% of the people I know that voted for him regret it because they don’t know what change means.
They voted ignorantly and out of of anger.
But with this people know exactly what they are voting for or against.
[quote]mattchew wrote:
I’m a conservative by the way, but funny how since I don’t have these foolish religious ideas popping into my head I believe in actually equal rights.[/quote]
You hit the nail on the head. The anti-gay sentiment stems from religiosity rather than conservatism. Those that truly believe in getting the government out of their lives tend to support equal rights for gays, when they aren’t bogged down by the belief that homosexuality is offensive to their god.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
They voted ignorantly and out of of anger.
But with this people know exactly what they are voting for or against.
[/quote]
I disagree. I can’t tell you how many discussions I’ve had with people that are outright ignorant when it comes to understanding gay issues. Even my own family had to be educated when I first came out. There is a lot of misinformation, and unless you are gay yourself it can be easy to stereotype people you don’t understand.
That said, I’ve noticed that as more people come out, family members, friends, coworkers, the stereotypes tend to disappear on their own accord. Once you actually know and care about people that are gay, it makes a world of difference and you tend to be a lot more educated on the facts.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Those that truly believe in the getting the government out of their lives tend to support equal rights for gays, when they aren’t bogged down by the belief that homosexuality is offensive to their god.
[/quote]
My gods practiced homosexuality…but I still find it yucky.
[quote]Black Greg wrote:
Contrary to popular belief Republicans and Democrats are not opposites. The only real difference is, while Republicans are evil, Democrats are spineless politically correct douchebags.[/quote]
What party did MLK belong to?
Which party was responsible for the Jim Crow laws of the south?
What party did lincoln belong to?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
My understanding is that California Family Code section 297.5 is already on the books. It says, in section A, that:
(a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
So legally they have the same rights as marriages.
Somebody please help me out here.
The problem being that using different terminology for the same thing is a rerun of “separate but equal”. If they can reasonably be granted the exact same rights, why not call it the same thing?
Because it is not the same thing and the rights most likely should not be exactly the same, especially in matters of children.[/quote]
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
The liberals do have a point when they say conservatives should care just as much about out-of-wedlock births and divorce laws as they do about gay marriage.
They do.[/quote]
So where are the propositions to amend state constitutions to ban no-fault divorce?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
The liberals do have a point when they say conservatives should care just as much about out-of-wedlock births and divorce laws as they do about gay marriage.
They do.
So where are the propositions to amend state constitutions to ban no-fault divorce? [/quote]
[quote]rainjack wrote:
They want preferential treatment under the law because of a lifestyle choice. They took it by force with the help of activist judges, which was the reasoning behind Prop 8.
The will of the people is the will of the people - which is the way it should be.
[/quote]
It occurs to me that just because the people will it, they still have no right to infringe on the liberties of a minority. And that the job of courts is to decide whether or not an infringement has occured (with respect to the rights afforded in state and federal law and all that).
I find it a bit sad though that this becomes such a big issue in the States.
Makkun
Yep. I just don’t get it. Between this and life beginning at conception, I just don’t see the Republican Party gaining much strength.[/quote]
Thats what I dont get–not only are these losing issues, they’re PURELY religious ones as well. Why is a politcal party defining itself based on a few religious beliefs?? The GOP has turned itself into a Southern Christian party–disastrous for true conservatives.
BTW, what did Jesus say about gays + abortion? Since both were around at the time, he must have spent a lot of his time lecturing on these two evils right?