The GOP's slow assimilation of Gay Rights as a party platform

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

Marriage has been for centuries defined in Western civilization as strictly between a man and a woman. This intent is to unite the two poles of human existence (male and female) in a transcendent union with the creator.

I'm sorry - I know this is getting off topic, but I have to address it. "Traditional" marriage for centuries was just a business deal - a bill of sale, with the woman and subsequent children becoming property of the man. There was nothing "transcendent" about it.

Back on topic, "traditional" marriage has evolved a lot over the years. Women are no longer considered the property of their husbands. Most people now have premarital sex. Many people marry and decide not to have children. Roles have changed within the marriage, with many women deciding to work instead of staying home with the kids. Gay marriage is just another step in the evolution process (albeit a big step). If the GOP doesn't want to get left behind, they will evolve with everyone else.

reply to post by stanguilles7


I would vote for the candidate - not the party. If it is a Democrat, Republican, or Other, and they have at least a moderate chance of winning then I would vote for that candidate. Since I am economically liberal and socially conservative there are few candidates that actually appeal to me. I would be more inclined to vote for a Democrat that does not beat the social issues drum or a Republican that is moderate on economics. Two examples would be Bob Casey (Pennsylvania) and Olympia Snowe (Maine).

reply to post by kaylaluv


First of all I know all about that sort of reductionism in historical events. You want to reduce all things primarily to a material or economic basis. I do not buy such absolutely BS for one minute. Second, there is nothing evolutionary about becoming more degenerate (which we are); it is called devolution. Western man has perfected its application.

Here's the thing, while in principle I am not against gay people marrying, I am against the government having anything to do with it. Why? Because you can't force, by law, church doctrine. I am all about civil marriages, but there is a difference between treating gay couples equally in the eyes of the law, and using the law to force equal treatment from religious institutions under an equal rights banner. That's a violation of the First Amendment. It's an angle on gay marriage that is NEVER discussed, but to me it is at the heart of the issue.

Again, I am NOT against gay people marrying. People who truly love each other and want to marry should be able to do so and have that union recognized by the STATE. BUT, any law that enforces the equal treatment of gay couples by religious institutions should be rejected. The state cannot force churches to change their doctrine as it would constitute abridgment of religious freedom.

Originally posted by projectvxn
Here's the thing, while in principle I am not against gay people marrying, I am against the government having anything to do with it. Why? Because you can't force, by law, church doctrine.

I am all about civil marriages, but there is a difference between treating gay couples equally in the eyes of the law, and using the law to force equal treatment from religious institutions under an equal rights banner.

Where has anyone ever suggested that the government should force churches to perform gay marriages?

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

I would vote for the candidate - not the party. If it is a Democrat, Republican, or Other, and they have at least a moderate chance of winning then I would vote for that candidate. Since I am economically liberal and socially conservative there are few candidates that actually appeal to me. I would be more inclined to vote for a Democrat that does not beat the social issues drum or a Republican that is moderate on economics. Two examples would be Bob Casey (Pennsylvania) and Olympia Snowe (Maine).

Olympia snow? Who is decidedly pro-gay rights an has been highly critical of the GOP's reliance on the social conservative issues you say you seek to support?? You might want to look into that a bit more.

There is no plausible scenario under which Republicans can grow into a majority while shrinking our ideological confines and continuing to retract into a regional party. Ideological purity is not the ticket back to the promised land of governing majorities — indeed, it was when we began to emphasize social issues to the detriment of some of our basic tenets as a party that we encountered an electoral backlash.-Snowe

crooksandliars.com...

Snowe also co-sponsored the fully-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

reply to post by stanguilles7


I should have been more clear; it is my fault. I was using Snowe as an example of an economically moderate Republican and Bob Casey, Jr. as a socially moderate Democrat (although Mary Landrieu would be a better example).

Also may I add, I do not object to the GOP becoming more moderate on social issues. Preferably they would ignore them altogether. My entire point was that, if the GOP wants to claim to be the party of tradition in America and Christian values then they should not support gay marriage. If they want to renounce that claim, then they can do whatever they want and I have no objections. I said they are becoming more worthless because, they claim to be so Christian oriented yet have failed to live up to this description so many times - gay marriage endorsement would be the last nail in the coffin.

Richard Nixon (aside from the whole Watergate scandal) and Dwight D. Eisenhower are my favorite Republican Presidents. I despise the craziness which came with Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

reply to post by stanguilles7


The whole concept of "marriage equality" portends to be a component of civil rights. Civil rights legislation is what forced all inclusiveness into private businesses. While in retrospect that was a good thing, it is an entirely different thing to use the same basic logic to for all inclusiveness into religious institutions.

reply to post by Misoir


Not to change the subject here, but your point doesn't make much sense to me. Sodomy is anal sex, which is something straight people engage in as well.
blogs.menshealth.com...

It's not a recent development either. With that in mind, even straight people shouldn't be married if they do that right? Or is this just about gay men? Cause last I checked Lesbians don't get into sodomy.

As to the OP, that's not shocking. With church attendance getting lowering and many people shunning religion it makes little sense to cater exclusively to a minority. Their hammering on social issues has always hurt them and they know it.

The GOP's slow assimilation of Gay Rights as a party platform

Other than gay marriage, can you show us how the GOP violates the civil rights of gay people?
Seriously ... if the GOP is stepping on the rights of Gay people .. let's list it.

Things change overtime-that is the way it is. Let's go way back- it was the Dems that wanted to keep slavery while the first Republican president freed them. It is just the way it goes, now most "racists" are viewed as republican and most minorities vote democrat.

reply to post by stanguilles7


No, if anything the Republican Party will fall apart after 2012 elections and be replaced by a genuinely conservative Party.

Originally posted by Superhans
Things change overtime-that is the way it is. Let's go way back- it was the Dems that wanted to keep slavery while the first Republican president freed them. It is just the way it goes, now most "racists" are viewed as republican and most minorities vote democrat.

No, the Democratic Party is still home to many racist's like the New Black Panther and then there is the gendered hate movement known as Feminism which has a home in the good old party of hate...