Anti-Baby Party To Become Anti-Family Party?

*subhead*Destruction.*subhead*
Remember the good old days when the Democrat Party was just anti-baby. Well, not anymore. Now it seems they're ready to announce that they're anti-the whole entire family.

The Politico reports that the Democrat party platform drafting committee is set to recommend language in the party's platform expressing support for same sex "marriage."

Aren't these folks concerned of the impact that the destruction of the family will have on this country? More at risk children, more kids hungry, more kids not having two parents at home? More people who will need government programs to survive. Ah, isn't that really the crux? The destruction of family means more Democrats so therefore it's a good, right?

In fact, it's not even controversial for them.
The effort to include gay marriage in the platform gained increased momentum after President Barack Obama announced in May that his views on the issue had changed to support legalization.

“I don’t think that we had any issues that were controversial,” one member of the committee said Monday. “I think we were pretty much in sync and in agreement with where we ended up.”
I guess once you come out as anti-baby, anti-family does seem kinda' uncontroversial, huh?

Comments

  1. So what if the poverty rate and abuse of children is higher as life and family are denigrated. What's important is that we all get to chase that ephemeral thing we mis-define as happiness and find our own inner child. Besides, anything else might call for personal self discipline and OMG! we can't have that.

    Here's hoping that the inclusion of that plank in the platform will cause conservative Democrats to ditch them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fatherless does... :(

    Otherwise... I know many older individuals who grew up Democrat, we can all relate to that. I didn't leave the Democratic Party, it left me. The Democrats didn't change it's platform based on principle,but through being paid off.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've been told at least once by people obsessed with same sex attraction that they don't agree with families "getting special treatment." Does that merit another curse and an insult or two?

    ReplyDelete
  4. How many is a good sample size. Anecdotal evidence is not lack of all evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And there's the straw man ad hominem insult. My point is that disdain for families is present in some degree I have encountered personally. I don't need to be a scientist to be horrified by that nor to wonder if my experience is shared by anyone else. Go back and look at how many personal insults you've written out and consider how that makes your insistences look inconsequential. If all you can do is insult then all you are doing is insult. Insult is worthless. Calculate how much of your commentary on this page has been insult subtract that from how much has advanced your logical argument and you have a sound to noise ratio coming from you. How's that for science?

    ReplyDelete
  6. So, "shut up I hate you" because "shut up I hate you" so "shut up I hate you." did I miss any of your insults? You really don't put out anything at all except hate speech. Scroll up and see what I mean. "Move along?" what kind of bullying behavior are you throwing at me there?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Tolerance must be extended always to persons and never to principles" - Think that over and see what you make of it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Since you bring up the topic, what exactly do you calculate as your "signal to noise ratio" on this page. Aside from your bullying thinly veiled or expressly hateful insults, what exactly do you mean to convey other than "I hate"?

    ReplyDelete
  9. This troll is not gay, just impersonating one I should assume. Just an overzealous atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Worshipping fictional deities." I'm sure you wouldn't say that without a scientific proof that these "deities" you refer to don't exist. Before you dash off your perfect reply, prove the existence of love while you are at it. Note I said "prove" not "insist." I notice too you have no objection to having your bullying behavior identified. Speaks volumes. Have you noticed I have made no personal insult against you? Why would I? I don't even know you. It would be very unreasonable for me to insult someone particularly someone I don't even know. You have no problem anonymously writing insults to strangers. That reveals your character. You seem to be all about insults. That can't be good for you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Remember that thing you mentioned about sample sizes and competency as a scientist? Because of your continued insults as I said both express and implied, you are engaging in bullying behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  12. And that's just more mockery. All you're doing is making fun. Nothing more. That's what bullies do. That's how valuable it is to bully. You're not interested in any discussion. You just want to find a way to make me feel badly about myself while pretending you haven't. It's called bullying and you are a practitioner.

    ReplyDelete
  13. QHg2s....

    And isn't that the irony in this.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Facile escape hatch but you still need to make sense or you're back to pushing up the noise part of your ratio. I've said I've encountered personally a disdain for families from people who identify themselves by their personal sexual obsession. You've mocked and insulted. How have you advanced anything at all? Or is discussion outside your strategy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have clearly reached the point of diminishing return. You have pushed the noise portion of your "message" beyond any "signal" that might have been present. At least as a bully you don't fail.

      Delete
  15. Our world is on attach by Satan in the diminishing of the family. He could not break the Church so he is going for the family. Dads have to step up and be good Fathers and raise kids with involvement so we have more Dads in the future.

    http://afterthemass.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  16. New slogan for the DNC: Now for the first time, because up until now, everyone has been wrong.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment