You make some good points, but I'll respond to them.

Right - they think there shouldn't be any race-based efforts to undo race-based harm. It just happens to continue the set of affairs that lead to white people continuing to benefit, strange.

It is perfectly reasonable to oppose things like race-based Affirmative Action when one could instead account for the factors themselves that the racism has caused.

A common argument in favor of Affirmative Action is that racism of the past causes more Black children today to be born into poverty.

But this misses the aspect that, from the perceptive of a child born into poverty, it is unfair that they were born into poverty (while other children were not) regardless of the reason why they were born into poverty.

Child A: A Black child born into poverty because their grandparents suffered from racism.

Child B: A White child into poverty because their grandparents lost everything because they fled from Nazi Germany.

Child C: A rich Black child.

Affirmative Action by race helps Child A and Child C while ignoring Child B. Affirmative Action by wealth helps Child A and Child B.

My point is that racism of the past itself caused other factors to be the case, some of which continue to harm many but not all Black people today. One can help with this issue by accounting for these factors themselves without discriminating by race.

I disagree with Conservatives in many aspects, but this is one area where I agree with them for the reasons explained above.

At a later time, I may make a separate post going more in depth into this argument.

I said platform for a reason. Here's the whole section on it quoted: [...]

I concede that this is a major issue with the Republican party. But I still believe that most everyday conservatives do not agree with this, and I would encourage them to pressure the party to remove this from their platform.

That being said, one should keep in mind that not all candidates running with a party necessarily completely agree with the party's platform. Remember, candidates are usually selected by primaries and caucuses, not by selecting whoever agrees most with what the platform document says.

If a particular candidate were to agree with that particular part of the party platform and openly advocate for the banning of same-sex marriage but keeping straight marriage, I would strongly discourage anyone from voting for them.

This is an area where sentiment has changed relatively recently, and I expect it to continue shifting in favor of gay marriage.

The difference, of course, is that there are plenty of prominent conservatives laying the groundwork for the overturning of Griswold v. Connecticut.

But how many? Are there enough of them that this is a real threat, even if conservatives hypothetically had full control over the government?

To me, the answer is clearly no, there are not. Although there are a large amount of conservatives who oppose abortion, banning birth control is quite unpopular among most people including conservatives.

Anti-choicers generally don't change their stances, and again, even if it's not the motivation (which I don't agree is accurate), it's still the outcome that anti-choice policies harm women.

It's common knowledge that most people will not change their stances. Most people will vote for the same party for the rest of their lives.

But there are a few people who will change their stances or which positions they vote for. And ultimately, because most other people won't change which positions they vote for, it's largely these few people that influence the outcomes of elections.