• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay Republican Group Prompts Split Among Conservatives

Republican disdain for groups like GOProud is one of the reasons I dislike the Republican Party.

And the democratic party disdain for pro-life peoples is one of the reasons I dislike the democratic party. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
And the democratic party disdain for pro-life peoples is one of the reasons I dislike the democratic party. :mrgreen:

I'm not as "pro-life" as most republicans but I certainly see abortion as an area where government intervention is warranted. Personally, I think abortion should be illegal after 30 days but that’s another topic altogether.
 
interesting observation

on nov 1, there were 39 pro life dems in congress

today, there are 17

Pro-life Democrat voting stats on healthcare bill by Jill Stanek

pro life dems are practically extinct, they were suckerpunched by stupak

plaudits for goproud

Well, in all fairness I feel both parties are "winnowing out" the ideologically impure. If I'm not mistaken the republican party has probably lost some of it's pro-choice advocates. I feel we're seeing a hardening of positions by both parties.
 
I'm not as "pro-life" as most republicans but I certainly see abortion as an area where government intervention is warranted. Personally, I think abortion should be illegal after 30 days but that’s another topic altogether.


I'm not sure just how pro-life most republicans are. I'm of the opinion that there is a great deal of variation in this subject. I'm all for abortion for rape, incest, or the health of the mother. That accounts for something like 1% of all our abortions.

I think our 50 million dead is a sad, sad, commentary on our society. No society can simply kill off so many of it's young without serious consequences. Teachers are trained to view children as resources. We've been far too wasteful. I fear all we've managed to do is damn ourselves.
 
I feel we're seeing a hardening of positions by both parties.

tea drinkers generally stay away from abortion, they seem to have more immediate priorities on their minds right now

social issues are still there, but emphasis appears elsewhere

for example, 8 red senators went with reid on dadt---burr of north carolina, kirk of illinois, brown of massachusetts, ensign of nevada, voinovich of ohio, murkowski, collins and snowe

the parties are evolving, consequence of and reaction to obama/pelosi economic extremism

plaudits for goproud
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure just how pro-life most republicans are. I'm of the opinion that there is a great deal of variation in this subject. I'm all for abortion for rape, incest, or the health of the mother. That accounts for something like 1% of all our abortions.

I think our 50 million dead is a sad, sad, commentary on our society. No society can simply kill off so many of it's young without serious consequences. Teachers are trained to view children as resources. We've been far too wasteful. I fear all we've managed to do is damn ourselves.

I can’t say I really disagree with this position. I will add however that I think the only way this issue will ever become less contentious is if both sides agree on a reasonable time frame for when abortions are no longer allowed.

I think the republican party takes too much of an “all or nothing” approach to issues like this. Wouldn’t it be better to save some of the children that are currently being aborted by proposing a reasonable deadline like 30 days?
 
I can’t say I really disagree with this position. I will add however that I think the only way this issue will ever become less contentious is if both sides agree on a reasonable time frame for when abortions are no longer allowed.

I think the republican party takes too much of an “all or nothing” approach to issues like this. Wouldn’t it be better to save some of the children that are currently being aborted by proposing a reasonable deadline like 30 days?

I'm for anything that would save the lives of our children. However, I don't see compromise as something we can look forward to. The animosity between what I deem to be a liberal humanistic culture and mine is growing, not diminishing.
 
tea drinkers generally stay away from abortion, they seem to have more immediate priorities on their minds right now

social issues are still there, but emphasis appears elsewherefor example, 8 red senators went with reid on dadt---burr of north carolina, kirk of illinois, brown of massachusetts, ensign of nevada, voinovich of ohio, murkowski, collins and snowe

the parties are evolving, consequence of and reaction to obama/pelosi economic extremism

plaudits for goproud

Yes and no. You are correct in suggesting the tea partiers are concerned with issues of economics but they are also concerned with teh proper role of the federal government. Others believe the republican party should continue to press the social issues so dear to so many of us at a national level.

I'm of the opinion we should at least attempt to de-nationalize the social issues. I see no reason why the national government or even the supreme court for that matter should be involved in issues such as abortion and gay marriage. I see this as more of an issue that should be left up to the states and their peoples to decide by democratic means. If the peoples of the northeast and west coast want gay marriage and abortion let them have it. Just give the rest of us the same consideration.
 
Yes and no. You are correct in suggesting the tea partiers are concerned with issues of economics but they are also concerned with teh proper role of the federal government. Others believe the republican party should continue to press the social issues so dear to so many of us at a national level.

I'm of the opinion we should at least attempt to de-nationalize the social issues. I see no reason why the national government or even the supreme court for that matter should be involved in issues such as abortion and gay marriage. I see this as more of an issue that should be left up to the states and their peoples to decide by democratic means. If the peoples of the northeast and west coast want gay marriage and abortion let them have it. Just give the rest of us the same consideration.

That I completely agree with. I believe the same on the abortion issue too. Both issues belong to the states, and not the Federal government.
 
Yes and no. You are correct in suggesting the tea partiers are concerned with issues of economics but they are also concerned with teh proper role of the federal government. Others believe the republican party should continue to press the social issues so dear to so many of us at a national level.

I'm of the opinion we should at least attempt to de-nationalize the social issues. I see no reason why the national government or even the supreme court for that matter should be involved in issues such as abortion and gay marriage. I see this as more of an issue that should be left up to the states and their peoples to decide by democratic means. If the peoples of the northeast and west coast want gay marriage and abortion let them have it. Just give the rest of us the same consideration.

That I completely agree with. I believe the same on the abortion issue too. Both issues belong to the states, and not the Federal government.

I agree as well but with a caveat:

Should unborn babies have the right to life? If you answer yes doesn’t the federal government have a responsibility to protect that right?
 
Yes and no. You are correct in suggesting the tea partiers are concerned with issues of economics but they are also concerned with teh proper role of the federal government. Others believe the republican party should continue to press the social issues so dear to so many of us at a national level.

I'm of the opinion we should at least attempt to de-nationalize the social issues. I see no reason why the national government or even the supreme court for that matter should be involved in issues such as abortion and gay marriage. I see this as more of an issue that should be left up to the states and their peoples to decide by democratic means. If the peoples of the northeast and west coast want gay marriage and abortion let them have it. Just give the rest of us the same consideration.

I suspect you also realize the very real potential for such issues to rip the GOP in two and do not want to see that happen.
 
I suspect you also realize the very real potential for such issues to rip the GOP in two and do not want to see that happen.

Well, then the thing for people like me to do is to abandon lgbt folks to their fate and reestablish solidarity with social conservatives.
 
Yes and no. You are correct in suggesting the tea partiers are concerned with issues of economics but they are also concerned with teh proper role of the federal government. Others believe the republican party should continue to press the social issues so dear to so many of us at a national level.


sure, fine, but of the 66 republicans who turned out 66 democrats on tsunami tuesday there were zero who elevated social positions to a platform priority

almost all ran against pelosi, obamacare, cap and trade, taxes and spending...

I'm of the opinion we should at least attempt to de-nationalize the social issues. I see no reason why the national government or even the supreme court for that matter should be involved in issues such as abortion and gay marriage. I see this as more of an issue that should be left up to the states and their peoples to decide by democratic means. If the peoples of the northeast and west coast want gay marriage and abortion let them have it. Just give the rest of us the same consideration.

most tea partiers agree with you, yes, but they are today hands-full fighting issues more exigent

and their hands are full, politically, with WINNING cards

allen west, kristi noem, tim scott, patrick duffy, rick berg, martha roby, renee ellmers, scott tipton, jon runyan, et al, are too smart to shoot the moon

social issues will hardly raise their head in the 112th, which is not a bad thing if we're successful on the fronts we fix

keep watching
 
Well, then the thing for people like me to do is to abandon lgbt folks to their fate and reestablish solidarity with social conservatives.

I'm not advocating that. If you are a liberal by all means continue to be so. I'm not asking anyone to abandon their cultural beliefs. That would just be silly. :shock:
 
I suspect you also realize the very real potential for such issues to rip the GOP in two and do not want to see that happen.

I don't care about the republican party. If it fails to represent it's constituents adequately it will die and be replaced by one that will.
 
I agree as well but with a caveat:

Should unborn babies have the right to life? If you answer yes doesn’t the federal government have a responsibility to protect that right?

Yes, except in the case of rape, incest or the health of the mother. I don't wish to deny anyone the right to live but there must be a balance with the mothers rights as well.
 
Yes and no. You are correct in suggesting the tea partiers are concerned with issues of economics but they are also concerned with teh proper role of the federal government. Others believe the republican party should continue to press the social issues so dear to so many of us at a national level.

I'm of the opinion we should at least attempt to de-nationalize the social issues. I see no reason why the national government or even the supreme court for that matter should be involved in issues such as abortion and gay marriage. I see this as more of an issue that should be left up to the states and their peoples to decide by democratic means. If the peoples of the northeast and west coast want gay marriage and abortion let them have it. Just give the rest of us the same consideration.

LMAO
that makes no sense, you ALREADY have it!
if gay rights, just like abortion was legal in the us, YOU lose nothing.

YOU still don't have to get an abortion.
YOU still don't have to have a same sex marriage.

So how aren't YOU consider for?

What a joke, when it becomes legal, EVERYONE gets their way and nothing is FORCED on you, you will still be free to not like it, think its a sin, think its gross, or whatever YOU want

If it stayed not legal only YOU get YOUR way and YOU get to FORCE YOUR views on OTHERS.

Sorry, in reality considerations for you will remain 100% in tact, its a fallacy to think otherwise.
 
Jesus also made a whip and chased merchants out of the temple, because they had turned a sacred place into a market.
Not to mention that he says that when he comes back, it will be to dish out judgment against everyone who isn't a Christian. In addition, he advised his disciples to arm themselves.

So you think that if you tolerate the rights of Gays and Lesbians to marry, that Jesus is going to come back and strike you with a whip?
 
What a joke, when it becomes legal, EVERYONE gets their way and nothing is FORCED on you, you will still be free to not like it, think its a sin, think its gross, or whatever YOU want.

hey, it's OBAMA'S doj that compared gay marriage to incest and having relations with a teenager

tony west was responsible

Paul Hogarth: Obama's DOMA Defense Unacceptable

do you know mr west?
 
obama's doj compared gay marriage to incest and having relations with a 16 year old

many people find such behavior "gross"

that's why doj made the comparisons, fundamentally

sorry
 
Back
Top Bottom