Jump to Navigation

Homosexuality

Strengthening Families, Protecting Life and Promoting Health > Celebrating Traditional Marriage > Homosexuality
We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should "family" be redefined to include homosexual "couples." We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values

Homosexual acceptance is increasing in America, even among conservatives and Christians. An anti-gay crusade cannot help the Republican's relevance to society.

That being said, many thoughtful people see homosexuality as a personally destructive lifestyle choice. While government's job is not to decide morality or affirm either viewpoint, it must fully affirm one's right to hold and express their chosen viewpoint. Furthermore, conservatives support the Constitutional right to free association, which in part means sectarian and noncommercial movements have a right to define their own moral codes that may prevent their association with what they view as improper moral choices.

Marriage is handled in a different plank, and the courts have been clear about our constitutional right to free association.

Fault:

Comments

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Random plank

Strengthening Families, Protecting Life and Promoting Health > Protecting Innocent Human Life > Conscience Clause
We believe that doctors, nurses, pharmacists, any employees of hospitals and insurance companies, health care organizations, medical and scientific research students, and any employee should be protected by Texas law if they conscientiously object to participate in practices that conflict with their moral or religious beliefs, including but not limited to abortion, the prescription for and dispensing of drugs with abortifacient potential, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, eugenic screenings, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration. We call on the Texas Legislature to pass legislation to strengthen and clarify the current conscience clause in the Occupational Code to include the above-mentioned persons and practices.
Reason:

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are silly here because they are not legal in Texas.

Existing law limits "withdrawal of nutrition and hydration" to circumstances that neither constitute suicide nor murder. There is no reason to "protect" a provider in the absence of moral unsoundness.

"Employees of hospitals and insurance companies, health care organizations, medical and scientific research students, and any employee should be protected by Texas law" is grossly over-broad and applies to people who have no hands-on role in morally unsound activities.

"human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, [and] eugenic screenings" are specialized fields. It is easy to decline to participate in these activities: don't work in these fields.

Furthermore, eugenic screenings are almost universally considered morally unsound. Since they are not commonplace, the best way to deal with these is direct bans, not a conscience clause.

wordy, redundant, extreme, pointless

Problems

Show problem parts of the platform:
Platforms promote principles and policies. Planks must not push particular polymorphic political proposals, including bills.about a specific bill (6)
Parts of these were recently implemented.accomplished (11)
Parts of these only promote limited religious viewpoints.advances religious doctrine (8)
Too many positions already overwhelm voters. We cannot add more without a plan to cut ballot complexity.another elected office (6)
The GOP should not be a virulent, anti-homosexual crusade.anti-homosexual crusade (6)
These destroy useful customs or start us down slippery slopes.bad precedent (17)
Cliches belong on the playground, not in serious platforms.cliche (5)
These contradict other planks.contradictory (13)
These simply go too far, overshooting a rational remedy.extreme (25)
These have factual errors.incorrect (11)
These planks advanced contemporary liberal causes or expand government.leftist (22)
These planks require belief in something that is untrue.misinformed (18)
These are not appropriate for a platform document.misuse of platform (6)
These planks have minor punctuation or grammatical errors.needs copyedit (8)
These problems were fixed before the 2008 platform was published.no longer relevant (3)
"Black helicopters" and paranoid conspiracy have no place in our party.paranoid (15)
Parts of these do nothing useful.pointless (61)
These proposals would make our kids stupider.reduces education quality (3)
These planks are internally redundant or repeat other parts of the platform.redundant (41)
These planks should propose a more general solution.too specific (6)
These planks are unclear or unfocused.vague (19)
Puffy prose, hackneyed phrases, and obscure words create pinheaded, unfocused, and inaccessible platforms. Platforms must be simple and direct.wordy (47)

Recent comments