Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Posted on 05/12/2012 7:44:19 AM PDT by markomalley
A memo sent out by a Republican pollster has been making the rounds online for its conclusion that the party needs to embrace gay marriage as part of its platform because of recent trends showing increased support for this important social issue. Jan van Lohuizen, who worked as a pollster for George W. Bush in 2004, made the case that the GOP should be fighting for gay marriage as a conservative issue, by emphasizing that “freedom means freedom for everyone.”
The memo contains polling data showing that not only is support of gay marriage steadily increasing with the American people at large, but that a majority of Republicans now support “extending basic legal protections to gays and lesbians” like the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and hospital visitation rights for gay and lesbian partners. Van Lohuizen stresses that this position does not mean gays and lesbians would be given special treatment, but instead ensures they are given the same protections under the law as everyone else.
“People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to gay and lesbian couples; gay and lesbian couples should not face discrimination and their relationship should be protected under the law. People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits.”
He also explains how the GOP can frame support of gay marriage as a conservative issue.
“As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.”
Never heard of the guy. Why am I supposed to fawn over the pronouncements of a spineless nobody?
There's a reason they are called queers. If that isn't queer, I don't know what is.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
This includes external contracts, such as insurance
The Government should not involved at all,
one way or the other
This pulls the thorn out of the Paw
and removes the ability of others
to define Society in their Own Image
I understand the Societal Benefit of Marriage as a
stable productive unit for the raising of Children
And protecting those who are rendered dependent by pregnancy
This is obvious, but
It is a matter between individuals.
Freepers tend to be divided on
Statist Conservative / Libertarian Conservative Issues,
this is one that cuts to the core
Moral Acts Enforced by Law Cease to be Moral Acts
I, however would never blame someone for "Disagreeing"
There shouldn’t be any debate on this issue: marriage is one man, one woman, and anything else is barbarism. And it is not an accident that there are gay moles in both parties pushing this agenda:
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
Gay marriage is inconsequential to our immediate future. Why doesn’t Obama advocate the marriage of the fathers of the 70% illegitimate afro-americans to the women they donated their seed. Then they could raise these children as a family and get them off the dole. Now that would have wonderful consequences for this country!
Jan van Lohuizen earned his Ph.D. in Political Science from Rice University in 1978. He has been in the polling business ever since.
In the 1980s, he worked for two of the leading Republican polling firms and spent two years as the opinion research director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
In 1991, he founded his own firm, Voter/Consumer Research. He served as President George W. Bush’s pollster in both of his presidential election campaigns. He is highly regarded by political professionals in both parties.
There is also a photo which practically screams ‘could I be more gay?’
I am not sure that you are right and rather think that the republicans could win big on this issue if they are smart and articulate enough to make their point.
It’s a matter of real equality , respect of nature(true ecology ! Where are the “green” ? ) and defence of children.
A sane society can’t recognize homosexuality as normal or equal to union between man and woman or it will destroy its own foundation commiting a crime against nature, reason and God
...a Republican pollster has been making the rounds online for its conclusion that the party needs to embrace gay marriage as part of its platform. ___________________________________________________________
When the GOP forsakes pro-family values, social conservatives will forsake the GOP. The party will go the way of the Whigs.
Embrace a position that a majority of the states’ citizens have solidly stated they oppose.
Makes sense to me.
< /Sarcasm>
There is simply no compelling argument to completely abandon sympathy for the mentally ill and accept their ailment as a "norm" that cannot be treated. The evidence supplied by cured former homosexuals is overwhelming. They can be treated and their lives can be salvaged.
To disregard their problems and cast them into the abyss by not treating them is an unjustifiable inhumanity.
Sorry, who?
It is all about pushing their lifestyle.
vaudine
All these little “professionals” taking polls are so focused on getting the pole result they want, not on finding out what others actually think.
First, my name’s not Frank.
Did you even read what you wrote?
Whether you are a Christian or an atheist, what is the purpose of sex if it isn’t to produce babies?
I didn’t write about animal sex. I wrote about human/animal attempted mating.
“You are too fixated on the anal part” - That’s really a pathetic effort.
“You assume sex is about producing babies” - Where did you go to school that you do not know this?
“Ron Paul”? He doesn’t have the brains that God gave gophers.
You have written a lot without making any counter-arguments, or, really, saying anything.
Attempting to mate with a man’s anal canal is insane. Defending insanity is a losing argument.
Marriage has always been defined as a union between one man and one woman. Changing the definition is perverted and will only lead to chaos.
Romans 1:24-28
New International Version (NIV)
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
26 posted on Sat May 12 2012 10:00:06 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by spintreebob: “jobs, taxes, jobs, spending, jobs, borrowing, jobs, regulation. That is what the GOP should campaign on. Contraception, gay marriage, global warming, war in the Sudan, polar bears and baby seals are distractions we should not get into either pro or con.”
30 posted on Sat May 12 2012 10:05:32 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by pieceofthepuzzle: “I agree that the GOP should not debate this issue. They should say, that there are very important public issues that need to be addressed (e.g. economy etc.) and that the private sexual lives of American citizens is not an issue for the government or politicians. They should then point out that the gay marriage issue appears to be an attempt of some to make a private issue into a political one, and to get government involved in peoples private lives.”
No, no, a thousand times no!
This is not a distraction; this is a central point on which conservatives are still the majority and on which we can win votes from socially conservative Democrats. What just happened in North Carolina or (earlier) in California to cause us to think campaigning against gay marriage is a losing issue for Republicans?
The reason for doing so, however, is not pragmatic politics.
Marriage is not a sexual and economic choice between two people. It is the foundation of cultures which transmit values from one generation to another.
The fact that we **CONSERVATIVES** are even thinking about conceding this argument shows how far we have fallen as a society. Conservatives are not libertarians. There is a difference.
And thanks for providing me with the list of why I loathe amoral libertarians more than I loathe immoral leftists.
What? This guy doesn't get invited to enough DC parties?
People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits.
They have the right to CONTRACT which is all a marriage is (legally) anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.