The problem for our country is that a number sitting on the opposite side of the table from me just want to get their hands on the levers or power to legislate morality. It's a flaw in our national makeup going back to the founding of our republic. Sticking noses in other people's business, and moralizing about it, is national business. It's why we detest the walls and high fences with which Europeans surround their properties, urban and rural. We need to be able to see in. It is our right. We need to see if you are committing some act that demonstrates you are not among the Calvinistic chosen people. Don't ask me. I did not invent this nonsense. It is why so many on this forum have more trouble with the right of privacy than liberals do.
**************************
Another unsupported statement. How many is that now?
You keep saying that but I haven't seen anyone make such a statement.
You know what I want? I want the MSM to tell the truth about the "sexual revolution" and the damage that it's done. I want them to give truthful statistics instead of propaganda. I don't want teachers in public school telling kids that it's their RIGHT to have sex. And then help them get abortions when they are believed. I want advertisements to quit selling sex to our kids. And TV shows.
The liberals in government and the press need to leave our kids alone and STOP LYING.
I believe government action in reducing marriage to just a contract, to being cradle to grave welfare etc. has had a number of consequences.
I'm against divorce, but it's not govt's job to legislate "no divorce", as I recognise some cases where it unfortunately, despite my moral misgivings, seems like the right case
however, I would like to see us go back to a time when it was not morally acceptable to "divorce first, talk later"
For contraception and abortion -- for the first, let it be available, it's not govt's business to get involved in this (of course one could then argue the same for marijuana etc.), but more important to ME is that we morally accept it and then, being human society, use this to bed-hop
On abortion, I'm sorry, but I see that as just black and white -- it is baby killing. The only case where I stay silent is where the birth would harm the physical health of the mother. And I KNOW (going by the statistics on abortion in the US and Poland in comparison) that less than 0.5% of the abortions are due to this. On that matter unfortunately I am morally absolute and I find that I cannot in good conscience budge from that position.
What happens if a politician I would like to vote for is fantastic on the budget but is pro-abortion, and I mean pro-abortion rather than "I abstain from saying anything" or "ok, ok, I'll let the status quo be" --> that politician I would not vote for, I'm sorry
If the politican is a coward on the topic (abstains), I don't like it, but would vote for that person
If the politician is weakling on that matter (just goes along with the majority or does not do anything to change that legislation), if I have no better choice I would reluctantly vote for that person or abstain from voting (unless they were standing against an Obambot, then they get my vote!)
I've had this discussion with wagglebee before on a similar topic "vote for Romney or not" where I said I would only vote for Romney if it was him against Obama. Yet wagg and others pointed out to me that a vote for such a RINO would lead to a moral decay in the overall GOP and would be just a temporary victory -- in fact not really a victory at all.
The problem for our country is that a number sitting on the opposite side of the table from me just want to get their hands on the levers or power to legislate morality.
This libertarian "legislate morality" talking point gets really old.
We have ALWAYS had laws governing morality. Laws against, murder, rape, stealing, and etc. govern morality.
However, neither you nor anyone else on this thread have been able to establish where ANYONE on this thread has suggested outlawing contraception.