I believe they should go the route of supporting “civil unions”, where the gay folks can have all the same legal recognition/status as married people.
If the left and the fags reject it, they will appear ‘extreme’ to the mindless middle, and it would paint the left into a corner where they will be seen as extreme, and settling for nothing short of the destruction of traditional marriage. If the left accepts the idea of “civil unions”, then the issue goes away, and it will leave many in the gay wing pissed and the dems divided.
It would be a win/win.
To begin with, they will NOT be satisfied with "civil unions".
Secondly, WHY would you even CONSIDER special rights for deviant behavior?! Homosexuality is a behavior. Since when do we give "rights" based on aberrant behavior that is unacceptable to society?
Two of the same cannot mate. It isn't possible.
I may agree with you there. However, the big front is grilling the Democrats and the RINOs on economics and immigration (i.e. failure at national security). Grill them for the bailouts, and grill them for largely doing little to none about the lawless situation on our nation’s borders. After this, when public pressure is shown that matters (i.e. incumbents being kicked out of office) we can take other issues to case.
That makes no sense whatsoever. You are falling into the exact trap they want. Once you endorse and legitimize their lifestyle like that, they will go to the Courts over separate but equal. We need to speak frankly and honestly about their unhealthy lifestyle choice.
Reagan had the courage to speak out against these degenerates, why don't we?
Society has always regarded marital love as a sacred expression of the bond between a man and a woman. It is the means by which families are created and society itself is extended into the future. In the Judeo-Christian tradition it is the means by which husband and wife participate with God in the creation of a new human life. It is for these reasons, among others, that our society has always sought to protect this unique relationship. In part the erosion of these values has given way to a celebration of forms of expression most reject. We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality. -- Ronald Reagan, July 12, 1984.
“I believe they should go the route of supporting “civil unions”, where the gay folks can have all the same legal recognition/status as married people.
...
It would be a win/win.”
(the following is as I recall reading of a chain of events, it’s close, but probably not perfect)
In 1990, Richard Darman (Bush-41 Budget Director and so-called budget hawk) came running into the Oval Office all excited, telling the President he FINALLY had VICTORY over the Democrats (who controlled Congress), as the Democrats agreed to freeze spending, and therefore the deficit would be wiped out. He had it right there, ON PAPER, with their signatures. Of course there was one other detail - the President had to agree to reverse his key pledge and allow increased taxes. The President agreed - and Bush found himself thrown out of office in 2 years. Needless to say, the paper the Dems had signed had all the credibility (to them) as the latest Soviet Arms Treaty.
For the first 4980 years of recorded human history, the term marriage (in whatever language, in whatever culture) meant ONE MAN and ONE WOMEN, and in most cases it was considered worthy of promotion by government (in some way), as a means of achieving a healthy society. Only in the past 20 years, have people decided that THEY KNOW BETTER and the concept is outdated. The proper response to the people is simply to say: GO TO HELL, we don’t have the vanity to think we know better than roughly 300 generations of human history.
The idea that we give the Democrats half a victory, or really two thirds of a victory, by recognizing “civil unions” is SICK. It is no different than Darman (like Chamberlain) holding that piece of paper and declaring VICTORY.
No, victory ONLY occurs when you defeat someone, not when you give them 67% of what they want (and a path to achieve the other 33%). THAT IS CALLED SUICIDE.
You mean like it went away after California endorsed "civil unions" years ago? Wrong--give the homosexual lobby an inch and they want a mile.
There's a whole lot of us who, if the Repubs endorse "civil unions" (i.e. "marriage" in everything but name only) for SEXUAL PERVERTS, will also stay home on election day.
I will not endorse a party which tacitly endorses immorality and sexual degeneracy of any form--and there are many (many) millions like me....MORE than there are homosexually inclined Republicans by far.
No. Since when is losing ground in a war considered a winning strategy?
civil unions are just talking points of homosexuals.
The PRESENT LAW provides for cohabitation agreements. Does the same job, enforcable in court, and generally the forms are free or less than $40.00.
This debate is not about homosexuals, it is about attacking marriage and who controls the core of society. Homosexuals are just tools for the socialists.
It would be a win/win.
OR
We could go with the laws of God, which in this case says that homosexuality is an "abomination" and "destable".
Sticking with His Word is always "win/win".
(Go away Log Cabin Republican).