PDA

View Full Version : Ronald Reagan Was A SOCIAL Conservative



mike128
01-07-2012, 02:58 PM
For all those establishment Republican "moderates" (a.k.a. liberals), like Karl Rove, who insist that we need a Republican "moderate", like Flip Romney, to win against Obama, I would officially like to prove that Ronald Reagan was a TRUE social conservative who won not one, but TWO LANDSLIDE ELECTIONS, against Jimmy Carter back in 1980, and against "Fritz" Walter Mondale back in 1984.

And to point this out, I would like to officially introduce the ONLY book that ANY President of the United States has ever published, while in office: Ronald Reagan's "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation".

Reagan published this book back in 1983, right before he won a second term as President in a LANDSLIDE election, back in 1984. I love Ronald Reagan. And I am NOT ashamed to admit it, unlike some of those "establishment" Republicans who keep trying to tell us to "get real" and that the era of Reagan is "over".

Without further interruptions, I would like to personally introduce the ONLY book which Ronald Reagan ever penned, while in office, called "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation".

Here is the official picture of the book's cover:

http://www.edmontonprolife.org/Books/Book%20Covers/Abortion-Reagan.jpg

Hopefully, true conservatives will finally realize that nominating "Obama-lite" will only result in getting Obama re-elected.

Novaheart
01-07-2012, 04:41 PM
For all those establishment Republican "moderates" (a.k.a. liberals), like Karl Rove, who insist that we need a Republican "moderate", like Flip Romney, to win against Obama, I would officially like to prove that Ronald Reagan was a TRUE social conservative who won not one, but TWO LANDSLIDE ELECTIONS, against Jimmy Carter back in 1980, and against "Fritz" Walter Mondale back in 1984.

And to point this out, I would like to officially introduce the ONLY book that ANY President of the United States has ever published, while in office: Ronald Reagan's "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation".

What are the issues (one or two word titles) which define being a social conservative and how are they related to each other or the definition of conservative?

This isn't a grammar lesson or a gotcha- I'm merely sick of various party members (Democratic and Republican) trying to restrict the meaning of conservative or liberal to their view of what the party should look like.

Abortion is always a difficult issue. As a rule, I just don't discuss it and don't intend to now beyond the fact that abortion has nothing to do with illegal immigration, mass immigration, the moslem threat, or gay rights. Sure, you can jump through some hoops to make a connection if you like, but this isn't the Kevin Bacon game, it's serious.

The bottom line is that abortion is best left alone.

So now that abortion is out of play, what defines a social conservative and what has it got to do with being a fiscal conservative or a foreign policy conservative?

We need to stop illegal immigration. That is neither left nor right, it's simply what needs to be done.

We need to deport illegal aliens in this country, otherwise we're sending a mixed message, and we're also taking on a huge burden and population increase.

We need to stop mass immigration and any notion of "fairness" or ethnic balance in immigration. We have something of value here, we only need to bring the very best in to further our perfection. The Kazon are inferior? We do not assimilate them.

We need to stop Islamic infiltration of this country and ignore the tears of misguided people. Islam is incompatible with liberty, the Islamic nations have proven that.

These are not conservative or liberal positions- they are rational and correct positions.

Rockntractor
01-07-2012, 07:54 PM
What are the issues (one or two word titles) which define being a social conservative and how are they related to each other or the definition of conservative?

This isn't a grammar lesson or a gotcha- I'm merely sick of various party members (Democratic and Republican) trying to restrict the meaning of conservative or liberal to their view of what the party should look like.

Abortion is always a difficult issue. As a rule, I just don't discuss it and don't intend to now beyond the fact that abortion has nothing to do with illegal immigration, mass immigration, the moslem threat, or gay rights. Sure, you can jump through some hoops to make a connection if you like, but this isn't the Kevin Bacon game, it's serious.

The bottom line is that abortion is best left alone.

So now that abortion is out of play, what defines a social conservative and what has it got to do with being a fiscal conservative or a foreign policy conservative?

We need to stop illegal immigration. That is neither left nor right, it's simply what needs to be done.

We need to deport illegal aliens in this country, otherwise we're sending a mixed message, and we're also taking on a huge burden and population increase.

We need to stop mass immigration and any notion of "fairness" or ethnic balance in immigration. We have something of value here, we only need to bring the very best in to further our perfection. The Kazon are inferior? We do not assimilate them.

We need to stop Islamic infiltration of this country and ignore the tears of misguided people. Islam is incompatible with liberty, the Islamic nations have proven that.

These are not conservative or liberal positions- they are rational and correct positions.

:blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::b lah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::bla h::blah:

Molon Labe
01-07-2012, 08:43 PM
Mike...the problem is that Rick Santorum doesn't represent Reagan either.

the tea party was created to fight against big government conservatives like Santorum.

JB
01-07-2012, 08:52 PM
...(roughly) 95 out of your last 100 posts had the word "Romney" in them. Do you have some sort of Pavlovian response to the word?

Is it like Viagra to you? Romney. Boing.

Romney.
Romney.
Romney.
Romney.
Romney.
Romney.
Romney.
Romney.
Romney.
Romney.
Romney.
Romney.
Romney.
Romney.

There, that should put you to sleep for a while.

mike128
01-07-2012, 09:44 PM
Mike...the problem is that Rick Santorum doesn't represent Reagan either.

the tea party was created to fight against big government conservatives like Santorum.
So are you implying that Flip-Flop Romney, the guy who created the blueprint for Obamacare, DOES represent Reagan??

Molon Labe
01-07-2012, 09:57 PM
So are you implying that Flip-Flop Romney, the guy who created the blueprint for Obamacare, DOES represent Reagan??

I never mentioned Romney.

Novaheart
01-07-2012, 11:07 PM
:blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::b lah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::bla h::blah:

could you be more childish

Rockntractor
01-07-2012, 11:18 PM
could you be more childish

Sure but we have you.:D

Apache
01-07-2012, 11:32 PM
So are you implying that Flip-Flop Romney, the guy who created the blueprint for Obamacare, DOES represent Reagan??

Dude, you need to get a grip...

You see romney where there is none. You're the boy who cried romney... Get over yourself. Most of what you think you've found out has already been discussed here....:cool:

We have a pretty good understanding of what romney is about...

MrsSmith
01-07-2012, 11:39 PM
What are the issues (one or two word titles) which define being a social conservative and how are they related to each other or the definition of conservative?

This isn't a grammar lesson or a gotcha- I'm merely sick of various party members (Democratic and Republican) trying to restrict the meaning of conservative or liberal to their view of what the party should look like.

Abortion is always a difficult issue. As a rule, I just don't discuss it and don't intend to now beyond the fact that abortion has nothing to do with illegal immigration, mass immigration, the moslem threat, or gay rights. Sure, you can jump through some hoops to make a connection if you like, but this isn't the Kevin Bacon game, it's serious.

The bottom line is that abortion is best left alone.

So now that abortion is out of play Abortion is not "out of play." Just as other horrible laws stayed "in play" until they were undone, the law that allows the wholesale slaughter of any human below a certain age must be changed. So the first definition of a social conservative is "someone that understands all human life has value."


, what defines a social conservative and what has it got to do with being a fiscal conservative or a foreign policy conservative?

We need to stop illegal immigration. That is neither left nor right, it's simply what needs to be done.

We need to deport illegal aliens in this country, otherwise we're sending a mixed message, and we're also taking on a huge burden and population increase.

We need to stop mass immigration and any notion of "fairness" or ethnic balance in immigration. We have something of value here, we only need to bring the very best in to further our perfection. The Kazon are inferior? We do not assimilate them.

We need to stop Islamic infiltration of this country and ignore the tears of misguided people. Islam is incompatible with liberty, the Islamic nations have proven that.

These are not conservative or liberal positions- they are rational and correct positions. You do understand that 90% of liberals disagree that these are rational and correct positions, right?

JoeKwonDo
01-08-2012, 12:16 AM
Dude, you need to get a grip...

You see romney where there is none. You're the boy who cried romney... Get over yourself. Most of what you think you've found out has already been discussed here....:cool:

We have a pretty good understanding of what romney is about...

Ron Paul is bat shit crazy, it follows that his st paullie girls are too.

Novaheart
01-08-2012, 03:06 AM
Abortion is not "out of play."

Yes it is, it's over, let it go.


A So the first definition of a social conservative is "someone that understands all human life has value."

Really? Is that why conservatives support the death penalty? IS that why conservatives want to instigate with Iran and China? Of course they all don't, but enough that you would have to call it a conservative position as demonstrated by your post.



You do understand that 90% of liberals disagree that these are rational and correct positions, right?

What is your evidence? In Maryland the opposition to the Dream Act is both Democratic and Republican.

NJCardFan
01-08-2012, 06:40 PM
Really? Is that why conservatives support the death penalty? IS that why conservatives want to instigate with Iran and China? Of course they all don't, but enough that you would have to call it a conservative position as demonstrated by your post.
Hmm. Let's compare. Someone who took the life of a productive member of society and someone who's only crime was being conceived. Yeah, they're the same. :rolleyes:

noonwitch
01-09-2012, 02:00 PM
Who said he wasn't a social conservative? I can't imagine anyone thinking that about Reagan, and I'm not a fan because I am a social liberal.


The only thing I can think of in which the Reagan administration allowed anything close to liberal social policy was C. Everett Koop's in your face take on AIDS/HIV. There were probably some on the religious right who didn't like his ads that informed people that short of abstinence, the best method for preventing HIV transmission is the use of condoms. In the 80s, we didn't have the Trojan ads on tv like we do now, so for some it would have been shockingly liberal.

The only other time Reagan did anything close to liberal was when he appointed Sandra Day O'Connor to the supreme court. She was a moderate.

Rockntractor
01-09-2012, 02:04 PM
I'm not a fan because I am a social liberal.


In some things you are but in your personal life I think you're more conservative than a lot of our conservative members are.

Adam Wood
01-09-2012, 05:03 PM
I for one welcome our new Romnulian overlords. :p

JB
01-09-2012, 07:07 PM
Yes it is, it's over, let it go. Wow. Imagine you on a messageboard a couple hundred years ago.

Slavery is out of play. Let it go.
Women can't vote. It's out of play. Let it go.

Or further back. The world is flat. It's out of play. Let it go. Etc, etc.

I have a current one for you though. Gays can't marry. It's out of play. Let it go.

Lanie
01-09-2012, 08:25 PM
For all those establishment Republican "moderates" (a.k.a. liberals), like Karl Rove, who insist that we need a Republican "moderate", like Flip Romney, to win against Obama, I would officially like to prove that Ronald Reagan was a TRUE social conservative who won not one, but TWO LANDSLIDE ELECTIONS, against Jimmy Carter back in 1980, and against "Fritz" Walter Mondale back in 1984.

And to point this out, I would like to officially introduce the ONLY book that ANY President of the United States has ever published, while in office: Ronald Reagan's "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation".

Reagan published this book back in 1983, right before he won a second term as President in a LANDSLIDE election, back in 1984. I love Ronald Reagan. And I am NOT ashamed to admit it, unlike some of those "establishment" Republicans who keep trying to tell us to "get real" and that the era of Reagan is "over".

Without further interruptions, I would like to personally introduce the ONLY book which Ronald Reagan ever penned, while in office, called "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation".

Here is the official picture of the book's cover:

http://www.edmontonprolife.org/Books/Book%20Covers/Abortion-Reagan.jpg

Hopefully, true conservatives will finally realize that nominating "Obama-lite" will only result in getting Obama re-elected.

I think you're right. Truth is every time I ever hoped for a social Republican moderate to get nominated in a primary, it doesn't happen. It's usually somebody a lot like Reagan on a social basis.

What I don't think people want is too much fiscal conservativism. I hate to say it, but Mitt's your man on that one. He's not making statements against social security like Perry and Bachman did. While people do want welfare reform, nobody wants a President who is unsympathetic toward the unemployed in these economical times (Hermain Cain, saying if you're unemployed and not rich, then it's your own fault). People want somebody who will cut down on the spending without dismantling social programs all together. That's actually what I want, but I don't think it will happen.

MrsSmith
01-09-2012, 09:51 PM
Yes it is, it's over, let it go.
I'm sure many people thought that infanticide would never end. I'm sure many people thought the slavery issue was "over" long before it was outlawed. As is, since every single abortion kills a human, there will never be an end to the fight to outlaw it. Someday, my great great grandchildren will be as shocked by the idea of killing a human before birth as we are shocked by the idea of killing one after.



Really? Is that why conservatives support the death penalty? IS that why conservatives want to instigate with Iran and China? Of course they all don't, but enough that you would have to call it a conservative position as demonstrated by your post. Yes, it is. When a person takes the life of another person, his life is forfeit. It's the one certain way to stop at a murderer from taking more lives. When a nation poses enough of a threat that failing to stop them would cause more death than going to war, then conservatives back the thing that takes the fewest lives. Duh. :D



:D
What is your evidence? In Maryland the opposition to the Dream Act is both Democratic and Republican.
Who is it that opposes voter ID? OH, yeah, the liberals that want to encourage illegals to vote for Dims.

MrsSmith
01-09-2012, 09:56 PM
Wow. Imagine you on a messageboard a couple hundred years ago.

Slavery is out of play. Let it go.
Women can't vote. It's out of play. Let it go.

Or further back. The world is flat. It's out of play. Let it go. Etc, etc.

I have a current one for you though. Gays can't marry. It's out of play. Let it go.

:popcorn:

Adam Wood
01-10-2012, 11:55 AM
I think you're right. Truth is every time I ever hoped for a social Republican moderate to get nominated in a primary, it doesn't happen. It's usually somebody a lot like Reagan on a social basis. Apparently you missed that guy who was running last time around.

Novaheart
01-10-2012, 12:05 PM
I have a current one for you though. Gays can't marry. It's out of play. Let it go.

What is the Supreme Court decision which would place marriage equality in the same category with abortion? There isn't one. Moreover, Justice Scalia himself is on record having said that the decision in Lawrence v Texas would mean that the Court would also have to side with equality on marriage.

The greater point is that even if abortion were to have some remote chance of being banned at some point in the future, it's not a good reason to vote for or against a candidate.

Novaheart
01-10-2012, 12:11 PM
A .........the law that allows the wholesale slaughter of any human below a certain age must be changed. So the first definition of a social conservative is "someone that understands all human life has value."

The eligible point in gestation for abortion is pre-viability. Medical science hasn't backed up the point of viability significantly or beyond the point of restriction. There is no reason to change the abortion laws at the moment. The only change you might see in what time you have left on this planet, is a change in viability and for that to happen technology will have to advance significantly in the area of artificial lungs and then artificial lungs for infants. There is no wholesale slaughter of persons, unless of course you consider spontaneous abortion in previable state to be a mass murder by God?

Of course until we can somehow figure out when personhood actually starts, we're all arguing in ignorance, but there is still more merit to arguing from science than guilt from something one did as a teenager.

noonwitch
01-10-2012, 04:41 PM
The eligible point in gestation for abortion is pre-viability. Medical science hasn't backed up the point of viability significantly or beyond the point of restriction. There is no reason to change the abortion laws at the moment. The only change you might see in what time you have left on this planet, is a change in viability and for that to happen technology will have to advance significantly in the area of artificial lungs and then artificial lungs for infants. There is no wholesale slaughter of persons, unless of course you consider spontaneous abortion in previable state to be a mass murder by God?

Of course until we can somehow figure out when personhood actually starts, we're all arguing in ignorance, but there is still more merit to arguing from science than guilt from something one did as a teenager.

You can't argue about abortion with those who are opposed to it-they don't see it the same way as the pro choice side sees it, and you will just end up being angry with nice people who you disagree with on this issue.

Lanie
01-10-2012, 08:02 PM
Apparently you missed that guy who was running last time around.

Against abortion. Check.

Against gay marriage. Check.

Against gays in the military. Check.

For increasing national security. Thinks we should have stayed in Iraq. Voted on going in too I think. Check.

What was the problem?

Lanie
01-10-2012, 08:09 PM
The eligible point in gestation for abortion is pre-viability. Medical science hasn't backed up the point of viability significantly or beyond the point of restriction. There is no reason to change the abortion laws at the moment. The only change you might see in what time you have left on this planet, is a change in viability and for that to happen technology will have to advance significantly in the area of artificial lungs and then artificial lungs for infants. There is no wholesale slaughter of persons, unless of course you consider spontaneous abortion in previable state to be a mass murder by God?

Of course until we can somehow figure out when personhood actually starts, we're all arguing in ignorance, but there is still more merit to arguing from science than guilt from something one did as a teenager.

Okay, I could understand why some question it in the first trimester. I will point out that all of the baby's organs (heart, brain, etc) are growing. The baby is more than just a gob of goo.

However, by the third trimester (and actually at the end of the second trimester), we have consciousness. The baby can hear, feel, etc. That's a person to me.

And here's been my thing about this subject. If viability, consciousness, and independence can be used to determine person hood before birth, then why not after birth?

Okay, I worked with kids which by many people's standards were "vegetables." However, they had their own personalities. I knew they were people no matter how little they could talk, focus, etc.

I also read a story recently about the parents asking the hospital not to take their kid off of life support. Why should parents have to do that?

And let's discuss the "Do no resuscitate" idea. That's fine if you're brain dead. Otherwise, why are we doing this?

MrsSmith
01-12-2012, 12:06 AM
The eligible point in gestation for abortion is pre-viability. Medical science hasn't backed up the point of viability significantly or beyond the point of restriction. There is no reason to change the abortion laws at the moment. The only change you might see in what time you have left on this planet, is a change in viability and for that to happen technology will have to advance significantly in the area of artificial lungs and then artificial lungs for infants. There is no wholesale slaughter of persons, unless of course you consider spontaneous abortion in previable state to be a mass murder by God?

Of course until we can somehow figure out when personhood actually starts, we're all arguing in ignorance, but there is still more merit to arguing from science than guilt from something one did as a teenager.

Viability does not affect humanity. The unborn human is still human before he or she is able to live outside the womb. If viability were the measure, we wouldn't make ventilators, dialysis machines, pacemakers, or thousands of other medical items. When Dad or Grandma or your firstborn child isn't viable any more, let them go!

There is wholesale slaughter of infants by human hand.

Do you count every heart attack victim as being murdered by God? When God takes a life, we call it "natural causes." The age of the human has no bearing on it, just as the age of the human doesn't make older humans more human than infants, or middle aged people more human than the elderly.

Science makes it quite clear that every human starts at conception. It is only man's ignorance and worship of money and convenience that places any doubt on whether that is the start of personhood also. If it cost more to abort than to birth a child, millions of people would suddenly decide that personhood starts at conception.

Novaheart
01-12-2012, 01:42 AM
Viability does not affect humanity.

Abortion is a paradox. If it is murder then it is always murder and is always immoral. But by what twist on morality could the state force a women or girl who has been raped to carry to term the child of her rapist? It doesn't matter what the incidence is, if it's one thousandth of one percent, you still have the paradox.

So are you pro forcing a rape victim to carry her rapist's child to term?
Are you for charging women who have abortions, or cause the abortion of their fetus with murder?
Or are you simply looking for a platform of self-righteousness?

mike128
01-13-2012, 07:16 PM
I have been reading the replies on this thread, and I fully agree 100% with MrsSmith's responses. The issue of abortion will never end until abortion gets outlawed, and those millions of children that get dismembered and killed each year before they're born have a right to live.

The whole point of starting this thread was to prove that social conservatives can win elections, and win in landslides, like Reagan did TWICE. I will never support Flip Romney, because he's lying about being pro-life. He funded Planned Parenthood in Romneycare after his so-called "pro-life" conversion. Abortion is a no-compromise issue for me, and I'm NOT going to compromise this year for Flip Romney, just to beat Obama.

Hopefully, either Santorum or Newt can overtake Flip in the SC primary, before it's too late.

Zathras
01-13-2012, 11:49 PM
I have been reading the replies on this thread, and I fully agree 100% with MrsSmith's responses. The issue of abortion will never end until abortion gets outlawed, and those millions of children that get dismembered and killed each year before they're born have a right to live.

The whole point of starting this thread was to prove that social conservatives can win elections, and win in landslides, like Reagan did TWICE. I will never support Flip Romney, because he's lying about being pro-life. He funded Planned Parenthood in Romneycare after his so-called "pro-life" conversion. Abortion is a no-compromise issue for me, and I'm NOT going to compromise this year for Flip Romney, just to beat Obama.

Hopefully, either Santorum or Newt can overtake Flip in the SC primary, before it's too late.

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k50/siolfir/Fun%20Posters/deadhorse.jpg

MrsSmith
01-14-2012, 09:42 AM
Abortion is a paradox. If it is murder then it is always murder and is always immoral. But by what twist on morality could the state force a women or girl who has been raped to carry to term the child of her rapist? It doesn't matter what the incidence is, if it's one thousandth of one percent, you still have the paradox.

So are you pro forcing a rape victim to carry her rapist's child to term?
Are you for charging women who have abortions, or cause the abortion of their fetus with murder?
Or are you simply looking for a platform of self-righteousness?

If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, the resulting child is 1/2 the rapist's...and 1/2 hers. Regardless of the father's actions, the child is HER child. Does it undo the harm when a mother chooses to murder her own child? Does the rapist in some way "win" if the woman chooses life for that child? Are there any other crimes for which we murder the child instead of bringing the father to justice? If your father raped someone NOW, would murdering YOU do anything to remove the harm? Then how can murdering any other child, including the one conceived in rape, do anything to remove the harm? In fact, how much can the mother grow by accepting a life that came from an act done to hurt her? By accepting and bearing that child, she can choose to find him/her of healing value, the fact that a wonderful blessing came from this horrible, painful incident. And if she just truly cannot find the blessing in the child, there are thousands of willing couples that would be thrilled to find the blessing and love that innocent child.

Every time a mother makes the choice for or against abortion, she is choosing for 2 humans, 2 lives, 2 futures...not just for herself. It is heartbreaking and sickening to see such large numbers of humans that are unable to grasp the simple fact that an unborn child is just as human as the mother. It is sickening to see so many people somehow believe that when mom wants the baby, he/she is obviously and instantly a baby, a human, a person, the moment the pregnancy test comes back positive...but if she didn't want it, then he/she is suddenly, instantly, obviously not a human, not a person, and it's perfectly fine for Mom to have it removed from her body just as she would a cancer or her appendix.

In no other measurement of humans do we remove the personhood of the human due to dependency, size, age, development, or any other reason. Any division of humanity into Person/NonPerson is false. All humans of all ages, sizes, dependencies, or stages of development are Human...and therefore Persons.

Novaheart
01-14-2012, 11:08 AM
If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, the resulting child is 1/2 the rapist's...and 1/2 hers.

And the law forbids her from killing a child.

Novaheart
01-14-2012, 11:11 AM
In no other measurement of humans do we remove the personhood of the human due to dependency, size, age, development, or any other reason. Any division of humanity into Person/NonPerson is false. All humans of all ages, sizes, dependencies, or stages of development are Human...and therefore Persons.

Throwing an egg at a passing car is "throwing a deadly missile" or perhaps vandalism. Throwing a baby chick at a passing car is animal cruelty.

MrsSmith
01-14-2012, 11:55 AM
Throwing an egg at a passing car is "throwing a deadly missile" or perhaps vandalism. Throwing a baby chick at a passing car is animal cruelty.

I'm sure you can tell the difference between an egg and a chick...just as we can tell the difference between a human egg and an embryo. Losing an egg in a period is not murder. Deliberately destroying a human after conception is.

Novaheart
01-14-2012, 04:29 PM
Deliberately destroying a human after conception is.

Ah, then you also oppose contraception. Good luck with that, you and Jay Sekulow need to have a policy chat.

MrsSmith
01-14-2012, 06:59 PM
Ah, then you also oppose contraception. Good luck with that, you and Jay Sekulow need to have a policy chat.

I have absolutely no problem with condoms, diaphragms, foams, and any pill that stops ovulation. I also have no problem with the family planning method endorsed by the Catholic church, with abstinence, and with any other method of contraception. Where the problem arises is when dishonest people call abortifacients "contraceptives." I have a problem both with murdering humans, and with tolerating liars...especially murdering liars.

Novaheart
01-14-2012, 11:58 PM
I have absolutely no problem with condoms, diaphragms, foams, and any pill that stops ovulation. I also have no problem with the family planning method endorsed by the Catholic church, with abstinence, and with any other method of contraception. Where the problem arises is when dishonest people call abortifacients "contraceptives." I have a problem both with murdering humans, and with tolerating liars...especially murdering liars.

When men can get pregnant, I'll be interested in the opinion of the Catholic church on contraception.

Rockntractor
01-15-2012, 12:25 AM
When men can get pregnant, I'll be interested in the opinion of the Catholic church on contraception.

When men can become pregnant gay marriage may gain relevance.

Novaheart
01-15-2012, 01:17 AM
When men can become pregnant gay marriage may gain relevance.

With each day that goes by, the Catholic church becomes less relevant.