TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:And more than a little worrysome to RECEIVE a tweet from the Pope.

koolaid wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: Trust me. I am tolerant. I am not judgemental. I work with flaming gays.

One of these sentences is different than the others...

koolaid wrote:

donkey wrote: This isn't about a slippery slope, this is about the government being involved in marriage at all. If we really wanted the government out of our bedrooms then we wouldn't have the government issue marriage licenses. We've already repealed laws against sodomy and there's no law preventing two people of the same sex from living together. Yet those who advocate gay marriage invite the government into their bedrooms and demand approval.

If the marriage contract had anything to do with "you can now have sex with this person" you may have a point, but that has very little to do with it.

As I said in my last post, marriage is a contract. It confers certain rights to the parties involved, and requires the government to enforce. Inheritance, benefits, hospital visits, parental rights, and all manner of other things are involved. Trying to distill that to "welp, we don't throw gays in jail for having consensual sex any more, so they should be happy!" is missing the point.

mamabearCali wrote:

talltex wrote:

I do understand the HHS mandate and that you are opposed to being required to pay for any insurance that includes coverage for abortion. Personally, I don't like the fact that my tax dollars are used to fund hundreds of programs that I'm opposed to, but that's the law, so I have to do it. I'm also a businessman, and I'm required to provide unemployment insurance, workman's comp insurance, maternity leave, sick pay, paid personal holidays, and so on...I'm not opposed to all of those things , but it wouldn't matter if I was...they are required by law. As I said before, there are religious groups that oppose blood transfusions and any type of surgical intervention...they don't get a pass on religious freedom grounds either.[

There is a vast difference between funding something you disagree and don't like with and being forced to fund something you find so very reprehensible that those who engage in it and propagate its existence are endangering their very souls.

Would you make a Jewish deli serve ham?

anygunanywhere wrote:

talltex wrote:
I understand you may not like the idea of being required to purchase health insurance...I don't either...but to say that it violates your religious freedom seems like quite a stretch.

You obviously do not understand the facts of the HHS mandate and the effect it has on organizations and even businesses that do not want to pay for abortions. I will not delve into this further here.

I do understand the HHS mandate and that you are opposed to being required to pay for any insurance that includes coverage for abortion. Personally, I don't like the fact that my tax dollars are used to fund hundreds of programs that I'm opposed to, but that's the law, so I have to do it. I'm also a businessman, and I'm required to provide unemployment insurance, workman's comp insurance, maternity leave, sick pay, paid personal holidays, and so on...I'm not opposed to all of those things , but it wouldn't matter if I was...they are required by law. As I said before, there are religious groups that oppose blood transfusions and any type of surgical intervention...they don't get a pass on religious freedom grounds either.

I will ask another question.

It seems that this thread is about the republican party changing platforms, actually changing core beliefs to suit the lefties so that a GOP candidate can pass muster and get elected.

The Republican party is made up of millions of people....some of whom share your "core beliefs" concerning specific moral issues and some who don't. My argument is not about those specific issues themselves, but about whether or not they should be part of the party platform, and if any candidate can be elected on a national scale if they are. Let each individual decide those issues as it suits them and leave it outside the political arena

How about the GOP adopting the anti-gun stance and even push for assault weapons ban and a $1.00 tax on each round of ammo?
That would show the lefties we are willing to find more "common ground". This common ground is now the buzzword in DC and really means we give up our beliefs and they continue to take our rights.

You know that anti-gun issues are not what this discussion is about, and just because someone doesn't agree with your beliefs 100% doesn't make them a "leftie".

In my world, there is no common ground.

Therein lies the problem.

mamabearCali wrote:So for the socially libertarian on this thread the answer is for those of us that feel strongly on social issues (abortion/traditional marriage/ parental rights) should violate our conciseness in matters that are of the highest importance to us to get the fiscal situation we want.
Others may feel differently, but I think this stinks like cow patties. I will not violate my conscience for a pay off.
Legalized murder is still murder, and that is what I consider abortion to be. You vote as you see fit. If a candidate wants my vote he must not be willing to say murder is hunky dory if a person is less than convenient.
I will add I don't think this election had one thing to do with abortion or gay marriage. I think it was that there are now more takers than makers. Mores the pity for us. No easy way to fix that.

RoyGBiv wrote:

donkey wrote:This election wasn't about religion or gay marriage it was about entitlements. When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have Paul's vote. Religion, gay marriage, abortion, and all those other "social choices" were background noise for the majority of voters. The far right and the extreme left may have concerned themselves with those social choices, but the voters in the middle (the majority that determines elections) was focused on the economy, money, and entitlements.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Ben Franklin

I'm inclined to respond that the entitlement voters represent the far-left in similar (far less than a majority) numbers as "True Conservatives" represent the far right. The election was lost by not winning the majority of those in the middle. I'll call them Fiscally responsible, small government, stay out of my bedroom voters.