**Post UPDATED at bottom.
In the weeks leading up to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last week, there was a sidebar skirmish involving two of the CPAC sponsors. The new gay conservative group, GOProud.org, which was formed in 2009, wanted to make a splash at CPAC and introduce itself to the conservative movement. But long-time sponsor, Liberty University, would have none of it:
Obviously as an exhibitor or participant, you don’t necessarily have to think that everyone agrees with you, and some people might even work against you [notes Liberty Law School Dean Mat] Staver. But as a co-sponsor, even though not everybody would have the same mission, not everyone would agree with the same tactics, and some would actually focus on economics whereas others might focus on social issues and others might focus on national defense – the fact is they’re all conservative in nature. You wouldn’t expect, however, a co-sponsor to actively work to undermine another co-sponsor, and that is in fact what GOProud does.
Liberty dropped, GOProud stayed, and CPAC took some heat. So coming into CPAC, GOProud knew its presence would be controversial and their members were prepared to address opponents at the exhibit booth. But last Friday, when a series of student activists spoke at the podium, no one imagined the undercurrent would erupt the way it did.
Alexander McCobin addressed the GOProud/Liberty sponsor issue head-on and praised CPAC for being inclusive and standing up for the principles of freedom and liberty. McCobin was met with praise and applause for his remarks.
A few minutes later, Ryan Sorba from the California Young Americans for Freedom got to the podium and started a bizarre tirade against CPAC, gays and lesbians, and the audience itself. Following the incident, information quickly turned up that Sorba has been trying to peddle a manuscript called “The Born Gay Hoax” for a few years now. In his post-outburst interviews and encounters, Sorba hasn’t revealed whether his CPAC rant was planned in advance or the result of McCobin’s previous praise of GOProud.
The conservative crowd quickly turned on him and forced him to walk off the stage. The ironic part of the crowd support of GOProud is that none of its leaders were even in the room at the time, but in the exhibit hall. This was a spontaneous rejection of Sorba’s anti-gay rant by the CPAC grassroots. They drove him off-stage in a moment that quickly became the talk of the conference and the internet.
The reaction from the mainstream media and Gay Left blog community was swift and predictable: CPAC boos the gays. Most delivered their verdicts without being at the conference itself, talking to anyone there or even watching the earlier video where Alexander McCobin was applauded. The idea that the conservative movement would actually rally behind GOProud at the CPAC conference was completely unimaginable to those on the Left as news of the event spread. Some examples:
Media Matters for America: Commenters all jumped to the conclusion that it was CPAC rejecting GOProud, not CPAC rejecting Sorba.
Democratic Underground: Immediate headline: “Your Homophobic CPAC Moment, Featuring Ryan Sorba”
Mother Jones: “So while CPAC organizers might have shown some backbone by resisting calls to kick GOProud out of its event, it’s hard to give them much credit for providing a guy like Sorba such a prominent platform.”
Left-wing gay extremist Wayne Besen: “I guarantee you that, for a lot of people in that room, their issue is not the content of Sorba’s tirade, but rather the unfiltered nature of it, because they know that their bigotry is not acceptable in intelligent society.”
Gay left wing radical Michaelangelo Signorile: Wow. Just played this on show. RT @CPAC speaker “condemn[s] CPAC for bringing” gay GOP group “to this event”
But then a funny thing happened. The conservative bloggers who were actually at CPAC and who actually witnessed the Sorba tirade went ballistic on him immediately. From Ace of Spades, to HotAir, to Michelle Malkin and across the entire center-right blogosphere, especially via Twitter, the reaction was one of complete and utter disdain – not for Sorba’s lack of etiquette, but for his message of intolerance.
Suddenly the mainstream media and liberal bloggers couldn’t hide the truth. The first video of Alexander McCobin was now on YouTube, going viral, and creating the contrast with how Sorba was booed off the CPAC stage. It was undeniable; facts truly are stubborn things. And this all happened at the speed of the internet in 2010.
The change in the reaction on the Left came when Keith Olbermann at MSNBC, in the midst of a rant on the “crazies” at CPAC, conceded that the conservatives turned on Sorba and stood up for GOProud. If Olbermann is defending CPAC, you know there’s a break in the Maginot Line. Fast-forward to 4:50:
John Aravosis, long-time gay liberal internet activist, was the first and most prominent voice on the Gay Left to grasp what had happened about three hours after Sorba’s CPAC explosion: “To the White House, the DNC, and our leadership in Congress: You are messing with people’s lives, and we know it. And the day that an anti-gay bigot gets booed at CPAC, you all better start being very afraid.”
He got it. And so did all of the conservative bloggers at CPAC and especially the gay conservatives both in person at CPAC and keeping in touch in real-time via the internet. We were a part of one of those moments. Another telling piece of evidence is that of the 15 issues that CPAC 2010 straw poll participants said was important to them, only 1% named gay marriage. It’s also worth noting, according to the results of the straw poll, the amount of participants who listed “stopping gay marriage” as their most important issue was statistically insignificant.
And though it took a while, formerly-conservative gay blogger Andrew Sullivan – never one to miss a chance to hammer the alleged intolerance of American conservatives – finally weighed in. Sullivan was completely silent about Sorba on Friday. And Saturday. But two days later, when he found a new angle, Sullivan couldn’t help himself. The story was too juicy for even him to ignore and he joined the blogosphere left-wing media bandwagon since he knew the way the winds were blowing. Nevertheless, Sullivan labeled Sorba “a glimpse into the future of Republicanism.” While Keith Olbermann is defending conservatives, Andrew Sullivan is tearing them down.
This moment at CPAC is even more important for the conservative movement as it happened at an important time when there is already a generational change going on in America. Boomers are fading, Xer’s are ruling, and Millenials are finding their way. Forty-eight percent of those who participated in the CPAC straw poll last week identified themselves as students. They are the future of conservativism. And they shouted down an anti-gay bigot.
There will surely be other homocon-related clashes within the conservative movement, just as the Democrat Party has regularly used the gay community as pawns in their re-election schemes for decades. But as the late gay political icon Harvey Milk, who started out as a Republican, famously said:
Gay people, we will not win our rights by staying silently in our closets… We are coming out. We are coming out to fight the lies, the myths, the distortions. We are coming out to tell the truths about gays, for I am tired of the conspiracy of silence, so I’m going to talk about it. And I want you to talk about it. You must come out. Come out to your parents, your relatives.
Last week at CPAC we saw the many years of work by dedicated conservative gays and lesbians standing up for their values and the principles of freedom and liberty finally pay off. There was a tipping point for gays in America last week at CPAC. It happened because they have been coming out to their parents, friends and relatives over time… as American conservatives who just happen to be gay.
**
UPDATE: I have been informed by a number of folks who were at the CPAC Blogger’s Lounge that indeed one liberal reporter did “get” the Sorba-GOProud moment correct. Tommy Christopher from Mediate.com wrote, right after the incident last Friday:
Just when it looks like this country can’t get any more divided, there comes a tiny glimmer of hope. Just mi,nutes ago here at CPAC, California Young Americans for Freedom’s Ryan Sorba launched into a denunciation of the conference for inviting GOProud, and as he railed against gays, he was roundly booed off the stage.
The difference between Tommy and the other liberal bloggers and media is that Tommy was actually in the room and present for the outburst, while the others were pontificating from outside the hall.






645 Comments
They should have rejected the gays.
Rejecting the gays isn't going to get anybody anywhere. they're people just like us just with different lifestyles, whether they be conservative, progressive, or tea partier. if the tea partiers want to connect with more American voters they have to reach out to the gay, lesbian, transgender, transexual and minority voters.
Sexual orientation, in and of itself, it absolutely irrelevant to any political discourse.
So why did they identify themselves as a gay group?
I feel compelled to comment. Probably out of habit, as I voice in on everything else.
My Momma always told me, "Boy, if you can't say something constructive, keep your big mouth shut." On further reflection, as much as this might be abhorrent to me, Brokeback Mountain meets CPAC, it is not for me to judge.
" Forty-eight percent of those who participated in the CPAC straw poll last week identified themselves as students. They are the future of conservativism. And they shouted down an anti-gay bigot."
I am proud of those young students. Dinosaurs like me won't be here much longer, and the world is a changin'. I reckon I had better accept it, even though I might not like it.
Some of us are raising and encouraging the next generation to do the right thing, regardless of forces hammering away at the foundations of decency, the vocal few, in our communities.
Confusion of belief and activism, conservative gays do not dress as slutty nuns in parades, are more likely to be monogamous, and steathed to gaydar. During WW2 my father's units most effective soldier was an obvious gay man. Hesed there is a difference between gay and f@g, this is the world not religion.
I don't care about calling gays, f@gs or whatever. The fact remains they have chosen a sexual orientation that is not conservative.
Certainly I have no problems with those who say they are gay supporting conservative causes. But I do question the motives, and the involvement/influence upon those causes, by those who choose to live an immoral lifestyle, as gays do, monogamous or not.
That's it….I'm done with politics and this degenerat(ing) society…
CPAC asked for this – goproud does not stand for what conservatism stands for. The gays in the crowd just showed how arrogant and disgusting they are and that is the only reason they attended. Thank GOD for Matt Staver and the people from Liberty to bow out of this charade which is all that it was. WHAT EVER HAPPENDED TO RESPECT – GOPROUD – you sicko wackos. You are on the same track as the corrupt government and just as disgusting. Not only is their lifestyle not conservative it is against the teachings in the BIBLE – how about reading it and take heed. CPAC and all these other FRONTS get more disgusting everyday and that is just why we are in the mess we are today.
I AGREE. Conservatives need to drop the anti-gay stuff. I don't see anything in conservative principles or the founding documents about gay ppl.
"…it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
I believe this is true for religious beliefs and for other personal matters as well. What a person believes in, and whom he or she loves, is none of my business. Period. It only becomes my problem (and the Government's) if it leads that person to coercive or violent behavior toward others. That is how Liberty works. Leave the policing of a person's private thoughts and feelings to the Progressives. That is the sort of evil at which they excel.
Kudos to McCobin. Well done.
I find it difficult to believe that at any time 'stopping gay marriage' might be at the top of a Conservative's list of items of importance. Perhaps the way it was phrased might have impacted the statistics. Would 'preserving the institution of marriage as presently defined' have ranked slightly higher, for example? Just saying.
I don't give a damn what consenting adults do in private. That's their own business. If gay people want to join the fight against socialism, welcome aboard. Time to stay focused on keeping this republic from going off the economic cliff.
Just think, a few years ago it was blacks and other minorities. Glad you can find someone safe to hate.
What is great about this country is that we have the ability to form our own opinions and then do our best lead our lives based on them. The trouble I have had with this debate is the difference between "tolerance" and "acceptance". Letting people live their lives the way they wish, staying out of their bedroom, etc is being tolerant. I consider myself tolerant. It does not mean that I have to ACCEPT these ways as a way that I would lead my life or raise my family.
In most cases, it does not matter to me how you lead your life or raise your family to a certain point. I am in no position to be telling people how to raise their own kids since I am having enough challenges raising my own. However, I have also made it clear to my children that different families have different rules and what might be right for them may not be right for us. Again, it doesn't make us intolerant it is just a different take on what is considered acceptable in my view.
Personally, I think there can be other legal "marriage-equivalent" structures in place for gays to commit to a relationship that allows the things they claim are being denied to them, visitation rights, estate rights, etc. Since many couples just go to a judge to fill out the paperwork now a days to "get married" I don't see the big deal other than I do have a problem with using the word marriage. It's a hangup I need to probably deal with but if the civil union can give them the rights they deem "missing", why do they need it to be called marriage? I am always asked, it's just a word, what's the big deal, but then I never hear reverse ever answered. If civil unions give them what they want, why do they insist on NEEDING the word?
Because folks like you need to see them as people, and that is one way. Also, protection in numbers.
I guess you really don't understand people with religious principles, also supported by the founding documents. Yes, I will flat out tell you its my religious beliefs that cause me to seriously question the morality and profitability of homosexuality. Its great that there are "conservative" homosexuals who aren't Marxists, but that doesn't mean I will accept their lifestyles and choices. I promise you that any conservative homosexual push to be accepted will put such a huge rift in the conservative ranks that Marxist will end up winning by default.
An picketing service member funerals to make your points?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
I should also quickly add, that in terms of an overall priority, the gay marriage battle ranks just above global warming for me which is to say, we have MUCH BIGGER ISSUES than this to worry about in our nation today then whether or not some gay conservatives helped sponsor a conference.
Not all change is good.
Normalization and acceptance of homosexuality to make it equal to heterosexuality is not a positive change.
Does this mean that homosexuals should be treated badly?
No, of course not, they are human beings and deserve the same respect and dignity that any of us deserve.
I think we need to re-visit the definition of the word tolerance.
America is a Republic/Democracy. Keep your Amer-Taliban Theocracy out of my house and gtfo my lawn! This is what Our Founders warned against- the Republican Party got corrupted by the Radical Right. Enjoy your hair shirts and "purity tests", folks.
Well if you want to call opposition to sin, and opposition to those who are in open sin, hatred, so be it.
I'm a adult. I have no problem dealing with the consequences caused by those who deny the truth.
Homosexuality as an issue has no place in a forum esposing conservative principles anymore than satan worshippers do at a religion conference.At this event ..like they always do ..homosexuals show their penchant for disruptive,exhibitionist behavior and take awy from them main focus .
Conservatives need to get rid of that idiotic neocon idea of a big tent.Just like with the boy scouts ..there are someplaces where homosexuals don't fit.
That's the point.
When you get hired, you don't say, hey look everyone I'm gay, deal with it. Nope, that's wrong.
But we supposedly have to allow it in conservative circles. Not.
Unless, of course, your neighbor's religion believes in picking your pocket and breaking your leg.
With all due respect, I respect that and commend it.
For anyone that has been around here for more than a day, they have an inkling that i am usually to the right of Rush Limbaugh and Atilla the Hun. I do not judge when it comes to that topic.
Where you say: "Some of us are teaching, raising, and encouraging the next generation to do the right thing", that is indeed commendable, yet you are teaching, raising and encouraging based upon your INTERPRETATION of what is right and wrong. You are instilling your values.
Far be it for me to have a philosophy debate with you, or anyone else here.
You know, there is nothing like getting the s*it beat out of you because of what you are to open your eyes to the misery poured on others. Who cares how one wants to use their plumbing, none of my business, and it should not be yours. Are you so insecure of yourself you have to hate others for this?
I'm the father of a two-parent conservative Christian household with four children. Everyone in my family has accepted Jesus Christ as our Savior. Although it is VERY clear, from the Word of God, that homosexuality is probably the great sin possible, since it not only goes directly against what God instructed for man, but also goes against what God has instilled in the natural world (homosexuality is basically the ultimate slap in the face to God), my own teenaged children have been indoctrinated by the public school system to be "accepting" of homosexuality. My hope is that as they grow in their faith, they will realize just how sinful it is. It is not surprising that a conference with a large percentage of public school graduates (of the past 20 years), who have been subject to the pro-gay agenda in school, TV, movies, and news their entire lives, would respond this way. The homos have succeeded in their initial goal of "being accepted", now they are making steps toward well more than just acceptance.
Sorry, but you are wrong. I am gay and conservative….you would never know it if you met me. There are many very fine gay people in this world. And being gay is NOT a choice. I didn't ask for it, but it is the way God made me. Anyway, The majority of gay's are not out. They are conservative and want as normal a life as any one else. It is only the few that are in your face with their agendas. I personally don't understand why the gay agenda about getting married is such a big deal in the gay community. Marriage is for straight couples, a civil union does the same thing for gays.
Good post
Agreed. I don't care if you're an alcoholic, adulterer, gay, etc. That never needs to be brought up.
Hence the just opposition to any group that labels themselves as gay. There is no need for any gay groups, if they want to be a part.
As a geeky, straight, white man I find it mind blowing that some people try to use "natural law" arguments against homosexual behavior. Homosexual behavior is seen in all animals at all levels of intelligence and non-intelligence. Sex has more than the core purpose of reproduction ESPECIALLY in higher intelligences. The argument that sex is a rational behavioral extension for reproduction is irrational. To say that homosexual behavior is against natural law is to COMPLETELY IGNORE what happens in nature. Also, ANYONE who believes in equality under the law or blind justice who is against gay marriage (a legal status, not a religious one) is a hypocrite. And "conservatives" who think people should be treated differently because they might prefer sex with someone of the same gender is no conservative at all because it flies in the face of the fundamental conservative ideal: INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. A conservative certainly can find homosexual behavior disgusting but a conservative would NEVER think of trying to limit the freedom of someone because of exercising those freedoms.
repeating from above:
I guess [the gay sponsors] really don't understand people with religious principles, also supported by the founding documents. Yes, I will flat out tell you its my religious beliefs that cause me to seriously question the morality and profitability of homosexuality. Its great that there are "conservative" homosexuals who aren't Marxists, but that doesn't mean I will accept their lifestyles and choices. I promise you that any conservative homosexual push to be accepted will put such a huge rift in the conservative ranks that Marxist will end up winning by default.
CPAC this year was almost no better than a liberal rally. After all, look who won the straw poll? Crazy man Ron Paul and his political cultist followers. This more than anything has proven that, like it or not, there is still huge divisions within the conservative movements; probably more so than liberals.
And of course, now on to the Christian bashing. Anything of substance you'd like to add?
No problem with your opinion. Opinions may change through experience and understanding. Peace.
Nice of you to censure my comments. I guess you can't handle the truth. (for those of you who might see this in the split second before it's deleted, I did not use any profanity and instead of typing "homosexual", I typed "homo"; the HORROR!
Let me ask you a question? Do YOU choose to be gay? NO!!!…so why would I? I didn't choose to be gay…after years of fighting not to be and contemplating suicide in high shcool because of it…I decided life is too short too fret over it. So I decided to live my life as normal as possible I could and be an example that not ALL gays are freaks.
If, in the state of emergency this country is in, stopping gay marriage is at the top of your list, you are NOT a Conservative. I don't know what you are, but it's not Conservative.
Guess you guys missed this, just minutes after Sorba's exit:
Anti-Gay CPAC Speaker Booed Off The Stage
http://www.mediaite.com/online/homophobic-cpac-sp...
Yes, it was a liberal who reported it that way first, and called out liberals who reported it the other way on Twitter. ( twitter.com/tommyxtopher )
My whole point is that just as we would reject the KKK groups, the alcoholic groups, the racist groups, the porn groups, etc from conservative organizations, we shouldn't have any 'sexual choice orientation' groups, either.
Tolerance does not equate to acceptance. And that is what they want, and want to force upon those who give them a platform.
Gay is neither here nor there.
It's like a society advocating only the missionary position. What is the point of bringing up your sexual preferences in a political context. Gay Marriage is totally pointless, they just want sodomy validated. Why do we need to do that?
What a dumb ass comment!!! There are more straight people with AIDS than gay people!!!
Hell, stick around!
It'll be interesting to see what Michael Steele fills the Republican Big tent with. I'm sure there " will be green alligators and long-necked geese, some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees,some cats and rats and elephants, but sure as you're born,the loveliest of all was the unicorn". He might even bring in a troupe of traveling minstrels, a fairie or two, and don't forgey the lusty, busty, bodacious Meghan McCain. She is going to do her burlesque dance to the hurdy gurdy music.
Good gawd, it's turning into a freak show. Pretty soon it'll look like the DNC…………
When you define yourself by your sexual practices then guess what…people get to comment on those sexual practices.
So, if Jack Ryan's ex-wife's accusations were true should Mr.Ryan head up a Republican group that are into wife-swapping, BDSM, etc?
Cause, hey, we need to see them as people. Kinky, kinky people.
It's your choice as with whom you sexually gratify yourself. That's a fact.
There's nothing deviant about being homosexual. All animal species (including human beings) have members who are homosexual.
Sorry to hear you are such an intolerant bigot, but you certainly don't represent my brand of conservatism.
Agreed, tolerance does not equal acceptance.
Being conservative has nothing to do with religion… or sexual preference for that matter you moron. While I may agree with you that homosexual acts are disgusting since I am attracted to women, you are completely irrational to think discussion of sexuallity has ANYPLACE in a political debate. You also need to read up on what being a "conservative" means. It means you advocate individual freedom, not advocating for making everyone conform to your ideals. I am sure you do something that makes me more disgusted than gay men having sex. Should I start a PAC to get what you do made "less equal" than what I do?
We will stay of your lawn, that's easy. You need to respect our right to educate our kids without the sodomite agenda.
The gay groups whole mission is to force acceptance on everyone else. That is why civil unions aren't good enough for them, why Obama has Jennings in the DOE, why employment equality laws aren't enough, and why in legal academia the focus is on getting the message to children through schools. I would never lash out against someone doing something in their home that I believe is morally wrong, and giving legal rights such as employment, inheritance, etc. The idea that the homsexual political movement is just about what people do in their bedrooms is an facade fabricated by gay activists and unfortunately young students are too under-informed, too Hollywood-following and entrenched in a romantic idealism to see through. The homosexual agenda is not about freedom to do something in the privacy of one's own bedroom, nor about legal equality. It is a culture war to fundamentally reform the family and marriage. I won't be drinking the homosexual political movement's kool-aid even if it does show up at CPAC or becomes a trend in conservatism.
Glad to see you have elevated one sin above another…didn't think God taught that. I understand that all sins are the same in Gods eyes. What deviant bible are you reading?
I have many gay friends.
I've hired and fired gay people over the years. In fact, when they didn't share their sexual choices with people at work, they usually were good workers. The ones who did, were disruptive and didn't last.
I have no problem working alongside of, or having gays working for me. At work, and in politics, sexual gratification choices have no place.
Groups that want to identify themselves by their ideology, God Hates Fags groups, Gay Groups, Straight Groups, etc have no place and shouldn't, IMO, in conservative causes.
Obviously, these groups divide, not unite people.
Avoid gay groups just as you, as a gay, avoid sharing your sexual gratification choices. No one never need know in order to benefit the group.
Sorry, but identifying your sexual gratification choices really shouldn't have a place in any discussion.
Nobama, it is idiots like you that give the progressives ammo to feed their lie machine on the internet. Are you sure you are not a progressive? I thought only progressives tried to make everyone do things as they want them to do it rather than allowing people individual freedom? You are certainly no conservative.
I don't see gay marriage as "tolerance" or "acceptance". Gay marriage is validation. They want sodomy validated and celebrated. We are suppose to love them, that's what they want. Tilting against windmills imo.
well said.
Yep, as with global warming (cap and trade) issues/legislation, gay marriage should be opposed just as vehemently.
So you're saying that in order to exercise one's individual freedom, one must have one's union with a partner recognized and sanctioned by The Government?
Hear, hear!
No, you didn't say Sodomite, now did you? Ouch!
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd444.htm
Sodomy is not a marriage. Bake a cake, get the justice of the peace and a certificate. It's still not a marriage. So in my opinion there is nothing to stop.
This country was founded upon freedom, freedom so long as it does not infringe upon the freedom of another…or a group. While I do not condone the gay life style I do recognize that they are not harming me or my freedom. Their are gaining freedom in their own way and who am I to keep them from it. this is a non-political issue.
I just get annoyed with the gays that use their lifestyle as a publicity event, a so called “teachable” moment. While toleration is required for harmony, love of the style is not. A persons sex life should remain private, hetero or homo.
Because they wanted to fight the steriotype conservatives have of being straight white men. The same reason minority conservative groups self identify. The video of right thinking people who shouted down that idiot Sorba and his irrational argument against homosexuals is the result of GOProud's label. PR to fight the steriotype.
Conservativism is about improving the individual's life, regardless of their personal sexual choices. If gays, like blacks, want to reject the so-called "liberal" movement that hates them passionately (just search Twitter for Breitbart and O'Keefe sexual innuendo!), they're welcome. None should expect their choices to be approved, however, but they MUST be at least tolerated.
With one important caveat: conservativism is about the advancement of the INDIVIDUAL, not protecting a category racket.
Gays that want to advance their acceptance into society as individuals, not as a category, they'll find that at the very least their money doesn't smell to pragmatic capitalists. Many might not approve, but will have to tolerate – because those that don't are going to lose customers in capitalism.
Gays that believe they can get gay marriage or other anti-heterosexual discrimination laws (such as ones that would make it a bigger crime for a non-gay to assault a gay than vice-versa), they will only get a well-earned cold shoulder.
Conservativism is about making choices and living with them. The choice of homosexuality is neither different nor worthy of special treatment from others.
I hope that you conservatives who are supportive of equality for everyone, who denounced the vile rhetoric of Ryan Sorba, take note at the vicious, hateful comments above towards gays and lesbians. This is a perfect example of why we can not even come together on this common issue of left and right and the bond of being gay or accepting of gays.
Take note at how vicious, hateful and threatening a good number of these comments are. This is what we on the left face from the majority of your conservatives on a daily basis.
These are your family, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters that these hateful comments are being stated about.
Until those in the Obstructionist Party of NO, are willing to meet half way, and decide that we do have a common ground of accepting a lifestyle that happens to be different, by reaching out and be tolerant, your side will forever be seen as the Ryan Sorbas of the Conservative Party and we will never be able to find common ground.
The only reason the 'God Hates Fags' and the 'Gay' groups join in any organization, meeting, or forum is to divide.
When they bring those things to the table, they're just vomiting on the whole process, and should, rightfully, be excluded from these progressive issues, as they are a disruptive, divisive minority with nothing substantive to add.
People have the right of free association. If they want to label themselves as gay, well I'm too busy losing sleep over an encroaching tyranny to worry about that. The tea party movement is supposed to be about restoring economic sanity to government, not a religious sermon.
…does anyone REALLY think that Jesus would celebrate a homosexual dying of AIDS?!?!? Seriously?????
No, but he also would love them enough to tell them the truth about what they are doing to themselves.
Just like he told all the other people engaged in self-destructive behavior about the consequences of their actions.
Okay, and those deviant sexual choices have what to do with the conversation? Nada.
And decent people do not care about those things. So don't bring them to the table with your label of 'gay group' or 'god hates fags' groups.
Maybe to bring conservatives gays out of the closet? I understand your argument Hesed and time will tell if they are truly conservative in nature. It is something that warrants watching, but……
It is difficult to embrace this movement and as an Evangelical Christian I don't agree with the lifestyle they have chosen. I am a stranger in a strange land and am given the task of being an example to every human on this earth of my Saviors ability to redeem. Given an opportunity to know and share with anyone the hope that is in me is something I need to keep first and foremost in my life. I have to leave my judgement at the door, with every sin there is the possiblity of redemption.
I don't disagree with GOProud's right to speak nor Sorba's right to speak….that is the crux of being a conservative. Whether we agree with their lifestyle it should not be something we discriminate against….once again another conservative principle….There have been Log Cabin Republicans for a while and we need to be able to embrace them like any other human being as long as they tow the conservative line.
Not Christian, just the view you are espousing. WWJD? Have you not sined?
Not all gays are imoral folks, not all straight folks are moral.
I tithe, take time to help those in my community and outside, support missions, and spend lots of time with the Lord by suporting his church.
instead of busilly looking for faults in others, why don't you look into that splinter in your eye?
bible.cc/matthew/7-3.htm
Wow, how intolerant and progressive of you.
So Lindsey Lohan and Anne Heche were “born gay”?
Homosexuality is behavior, people. Maybe people are born with certain tendencies towards it and others aren’t, but it’s ultimately their choice whether they want to do it or not. It doesn’t mean I accept or condemn your lifestyle, it’s just fact. But why go around demanding special rights because of what you CHOOSE to do in your life? The fact that so many think behavior is a civil right is just sad
Bruce,
Although I wasn't in attendance at CPAC, I have been following the events closely. And I agree–I think we have reached a positive milestone of sorts within the conservative movement.
Conservative lesbians and gays like yourself, who have endured the wrath and scorn of the progressive lesbian and gay communities and who have struggled to be heard and accepted by fellow patriots, deserve our respect and gratitude.
Thank you for your courage and perseverance. One small milestone at a time.
>ANYONE who believes in equality under the law or blind justice who is against gay marriage (a legal status, not a religious one) is a hypocrite
See? This is the kind of behavior that doesn't help to advance the toleration of homosexual behavior in the slightest. Sex is somehow above mere reproduction (not quite, there are more complex elements at work regarding intimacy that sex overlaps as a further incentive to reproduction), but marriage is simply a "legal" status. You're the hypocrite, if anything.
Gays need to get this very clear if they want to have the tolerance of conservativism: GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT HAPPENING. Not now, not ever. Tolerance is all you can shoot for; gay marriage implies acceptance of your choices. Forcing that on the public is against all that individualism is about.
If you can't live on tolerance and must have acceptance, especially if you confuse the latter for the former, you'll find no tolerance in any society, present or future.
They demonstrated their intolerance of others' opnions, and the lamestram media is loving it, no doubt.
Personally, I've never seen gay people not accepted as individuals at any conservative meeting. The individuals, if open-minded and not bigoted, are acceptable/tolerable.
But hey, when you come to the meeting as a 'gay group' or a 'god hates fags' group, you should be excluded, as you're there to divide, and to create a media moment, not to participate and to help the process.
Ahh, the old, "If you don't like homosexuality then you must be a closeted gay." routine.
Second only to the, I'm for gay marriage as long as both chicks are hot.
Sorry, but most straight men are repulsed by male homosexual behavior, not because they are latent homosexuals but because they are straight.
Well I am not a part of any gay group. I am an idividual who is self employed, who works very hard, I have watched my business get slower and slower because of this Marxist we have in office. I keep my private life to my self except for these few posts. I know many many gay people who are married, have kids and are conservative. We are active everyday in promoting conservativism because it truely is the freeist form of govt that promotes, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of hapiness. Some of my friends know, but for the most part, the majority of all gays are in the closet because they choose to be, so they can have as normal of a life as possible, so as not to offend anyone.
Right. Participate, don't flaunt your stuff.
We don't need the 'god hates fags' groups, or the 'I love my gay lover' groups either.
I am I hetrosexual conserative who was raised Southern Baptist. I know my Bible. It DOES speake out against homesexual relationships. Guess what it speakes out against evenmore often: extramartial hetrosexual sex! It is completly unjustified to focus on one sexual sin and ingore the others.
Your religious principlas are fine, but remember that God did not crerate use to be mindless, soulless robots blindly worshiping his name. Instead he gave us the ability to choose our lifestyles for ourselves and HE ALONE has the right to judge us for the choices we make.
YES we should accept the gay conseratives as our brothers and sisters in the political movement.
No one says you have to agree with the choices of their personal lives. Your church does not have to sponcer gay marriage. You dont have to accept gay marriage. We just need to work togather with ALL conseratives to insure that the ideals of Freedom, Liberty, and Justice apply to everyone. This is done through shrinking the Fed and building personal rights.
So if your for small Goverment, balanced budgets, and personal freedoms, then I couldnt care less what your sex lfe is.
Welcome to the Big Tent GOProud.
Dan,
That is the biggest bunch of unmitigated bullshit that I have ever read. You are doing nothing more than making excuses, using your "we are different" and "you people are mean". That is nothing but exclusionary.
I am further to the right than probably anyone here, and i resent what you just wrote. I refuse to be stereotyped by you, because you get your little felings hurt, or your panties in a knot.
Obstructionist Party of NO? Bullshit. You people need the Democrat Party as much as they need you. You need to feel victimized, and they need pawns. It is indeed a match made in Heaven, or at least San Francisco. I challange you to change your attitude and your mindset, the world looks a whole lot different, once you remove the rose colored glasses, or pull your head out of your ass..
Neither should have had a place at CPAC, IMO.
Sorba would not have said anything, and the gays who were there, but not a part of the author of this article's group, would have participated anyway.
The only reason to 'flaunt your sexual choices' is to divide.
They should not be recognized, or allowed to be a part, under those pretenses.
It has to do with gay couples wanting government to recognize their union in the SAME manner as it recognizes heterosexual unions….it is a desire for equality. And the answer is really simple: the government should only have the power to recognize civil unions, because by definition civil unions are unions recognized by the law. Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony/institution and should remain that way, free of government coercion.
I, for one, would be totally fine with the government *only* recognizing civil unions (for gays and straights) for legal purposes. I'd be fine with going down to a courthouse and signing legal paperwork to codify my legal connection to my husband. Then the marriage ceremony, which is a religious sacrament, can be performed by my church. Let's keep government out of our churches and out of religious ceremonies, like marriage. The only power that government should have is over civil unions. It should have no power to compel my church to perform marriage ceremonies for people who are homosexual or divorced or anything else that my particular church disagrees with.
I am less convinced that the heckling of Sorba was the recognition of GOPride as it was acknowledgement that Sorba is apparently a douchebag. It seems his reputation preceded him, because the booing started before he even opened his mouth. That being said, any progress on the issue is good.
I am a conservative, born and bred, and I have no problem saying that homosexuals should be a part of the conservative movement.
And of course, now on to the Christian bashing. Anything of substance you'd like to add? Maybe a spell checker?
The study found that the biggest homophobes were the ones with the most to hide.
IntenseDebate Notification <DIV>You are so right conservative does mean individual freedom but that does not mean we need to have you guys in our face constantly and especially so arrogant and yes I probably do something more disgusting to you than gay men having sex and that would be reading the BIBLE, trusting GOD and following his word – oh and yes I cling to my gun and Bible and so yes I am sure that is disgusting to you. Thank you for allowing me to respond to you.</DIV> <DIV style=\”FONT: 10pt arial\”>
The government should only preside over civil unions both straight and gay. Leave marriage in the church, if your church or religion calls you married it's their decision and yours. Marriage is a spiritual union and does not involve contract law as a civil union would, isn't that the only thing the Gov't should care about? The disposition of property both real and personal and the care and custody of offspring? Why should who you sleep with even be a part of any professional or social interactions. Do we need to start adding gay and straight to our names as some kind of title. Why? Why do we care? It's your life and your freedom.
Apparently there are some people on this forum who ARE that insecure. What a shame…..I always thought that being the Thought Police was something that conservatives were against….
Unfortunately for you, the party that has made a living proclaiming their devotion to gays and minorities (all the while setting them back over and over) is horrible for this country from an economic, freedom and foreign policy standpoint.
It's too bad that gays can't understand that most conservatives are fine with letting them do what they want in their own bedroom, they just don't want it to be taught to be an equal choice to heterosexuality in our schools. That's really the gist of it. Do what you want, but keep it in your bedroom.
Much of the "hate" you claim to see on a regular basis is based on the small group of gays that insist on pushing the lifestyle on others.
But back to my first point, it's sad that because of the Dems putting their arm around you with a wink and a nod, you're willing to throw all of the other things that matter, like financial responsibility, freedom to excel, capitalism that made this country one of the greatest in history, and protecting our borders and citizens right out the window.
It's pretty sad, and the Left lives off people like you..
The enemy is not gays, Christains, blacks, hispanics, Jews, or whatever other group you decide to use for political advantage. The problem is using people for political gain. The left has been using gays, blacks, hispanics,etc. for years to further a political cause–socialism. I welcome gays and all groups who disagree into the conservative movement. God knows we need every single one to fight to keep America from becoming some has-been failed socialist state.
Then those sinners will be called to account by God some day. Isn't it better to look after one's own spiritual health and let others do the same? Best way to spread the Gospel is by example. The finger wagging is counter productive.
No Lindsey and Anne are not "gay" they are either bisexual or I would suspect in both cases just showing off.
How about using their exes Sam Ronson and Ellen DeGeneres as better examples of being "born gay"?
Our world is changing Cowboy, and we had better figure out what is really important. As long as the left can use social issues like homosexuality to divide us, they have such an easier time changing us into some socialist utopia, (there is not such thing, of course, I am being facitious!) We must put many matters aside and focus on the really important issues–and homosexuality is not so important when you face losing our great nation to follow other failed experiments.
Saying that sexuality has a moral component, and making a moral judgment about sexual behavior is not the same as homophobia.
Calling everyone that you disagree with on this issue a homophobe does not help.
Tolerance does not equal acceptance. But it does mean homosexuals deserve the same respect and dignity we all do.
Good points. Gays have and will always be a part of any political group, conservatives included, IMO.
Just as much as we shouldn't let the 'god hates fags' groups in, we don't need the 'anal aroused' and 'gay groups' either.
What way you choose to sexually gratify yourself should not be how you identify yourself, and should not be a part of the political groups, IMO, such as CPAC.
Actually, it's not. Recently I learned that the passage in Leviticus to which you're probably referring uses two different words for "man." The one party (the one who is supposed to obey the commandment) is an "ish, " whereas the other is "zachar." Accordingly, there's at least a colorable argument that the prohibition against lying with a man isn't a general statement, but rather only directed at anal intercourse with the male temple prostitutes who were part of the "religious" practices of some of the heathen neighbors of the Israelites. Read in context, this makes some sense. Which is not to say that the sorts of orgies celebrated in parts of the "gay" community are not highly offensive to the Almighty. One needs to think in terms of the purposes for which men's parts & passions were created. Yet surely murder, the shedding of innocent blood (see abortion), rape and other sins rank higher in the judgment scales.
That said, I'm totally with you in terms of the public school indoctrination on this subject. Fortunately, my children have not particularly bought into it.
"I don't know what you are"
Um . . . maybe . . . religious? To say I am not Conservative or don't hold OTHER things equally important, however, is a liberal tactic to shut me up. Kind of like calling me homophobic and racist.
typical LIBERAL response…because you have run out of leverage for your argument, you attack the way someone spells…..you sure u are not a Progressive?
You pro-homosexual heterophobes need to read the facts before you support those who, before liberals took over then American Psychological Association in 1973, were (and who still are) considered deviant.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pag...
Thank you for proving my point. You've just managed in a few words to totally and completely prove my point. Well done Brokeback!
Bob – please learn a little more about the natural world before making pronouncements about homosexuality not being a a natural part of it…..nearly every single animal species has homosexual members, including human beings. THAT is the world that God has created. You can't make homosexuality go away or demonize it by pretending that it is deviant or merely a lifestyle choice.
As a lifelong conservative and a Christian, I find it disappointing that so many of my fellow Christians and conservatives are so woefully ignorant about how the natural world really works and I am even more disappointed to hear so many reject Jesus's message to us to love our fellow man. How can homosexuality be a greater sin than murder? Than rape? Than incest? Are you nuts?????? Or just morally bankrupt???
This is why I identify more with the Libertarians than the Conservatives. There are some areas where I agree with the Conservatives. I agree that the courts should stay out of this. I agree that a civil union which gives you the same legal status as a married couple should be more than enough to give gay people equal rights under the law. I agree that the opponents of Proposition 8 in California are conducting a witch hunt, and that Carrie Prejean is being persecuted simply for having a politically incorrect belief. And I agree that many gay advocacy groups are actively working to indoctrinate people in both our schools and our colleges.
However, I cannot go along with those who demonize people simply for being gay. I have no problem with providing gay people with the legal equivalent of marriage, so long as religious organizations are not required to recognize such marriages against their will. I have no problem with gays in the military either. I believe that government exists to protect individual liberty. That includes the liberty to commit sin, so long as your sins do not cause physical or economic harm to other people.
Notice how many of us anti-gay-lifestyle and religious types are getting negative points? If this keeps up then that "big tent" idea is going to become several tents against each other. No wonder Ron Paul won, who by the way I hear also doesn't support the gay-lifestyle.
No mortal can know if any particular natural calamity is God's way of punishing someone. That's hubris to say the least.
And don't forget the revenue stream for local government in charging for the licenses! I agree. If the "legal" institutions required something for law reasons, that is what should be provided for whoever wishes to share those rights with, just leave the word marriage completely out of it then.
There's nothing "conservative" about imposing theological or personal opinions on other citizens in a Republic. Consenting adults have the right to live their lives as they see fit, and to designate heirs etc. I happen to think many things are disgustingly immoral (pacifism for example) but I don't claim pacifists can't be on the right.
A perfect living example of reality tearing down yet another lie of the left.
Conservatives are not suppose to stand up for gays, how could that be?
The decades of lies perpetuated by the left are now being outed by the "New Media"
Power to the People!
[...] a new contributor at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Journalism site. My first post summarizes the “homocon tipping point” that occurred this past weekend at the CPAC [...]
The best conservative gays I know of are those who recognize that they don't have to be married or loved by others. This isn't about staying in the closet, but about recognizing not everyone agrees with them and therefore not pushing the issue as a priority. This CPAC demonstration doesn't help their cause and makes them look no better than a liberal group.
So is herpes God's way of punishing Heterosexuals? What about the clap?
Go back to DailKos moby.
I disagree. There are gays that have no desire to bring legislation for them as a group any more than evangelicals. I would have thought and said the same things you are saying now thirty years ago. Time has a way of mellowing us towards the most important things in life. Conservative Gays are not the flamboyant type, they desire the same freedoms you and I do. Living their lives quietly, just like the rest of middle America. They will meet their judge in the future and have to give an accounting for their ways. I too will have to give an accounting for my willingness to be a witness to any sinner. As long as it isn't against the law, I feel the GOP should allow them to be involved. If they show any non-conservative tendencies then they will naturally be purged from the Big Tent.
LOL. Since when did any liberal point out when any of their own changed the subject to bashing Christianity/religion?
Yep, I'm open minded and progressive, in the true sense of the words.
Are you claiming we non-Christians can't be on the right?
You claim you want respect but have you respect the gays in GOPRoud? I'm not gay but I don't care if people are or are not – it's a FREE COUNTRY. The fact that you care if consenting adults are gay is kind of, pardon the expression, gay.
Well put.
I suppose you've never had straight sex outside of marriage right?
Or recieved oral sex?
You've never thought of another mans wife in sexual fashion?
You've never gotten drunk?
Well, these are "supposedly" all MORAL sins.
Just like gay sex.
Why are you so concerned with this one sin?
Who's the one casting the stone?
No. You deal with it, when it's in your face.
Not wonder what happened later.
"One small milestone at a time."
Milestone to what? Acceptance of all sinful and degenerate behaviors? The destruction of morality and decency? The dissolution of traditional Family? Marginalization of religious people who don't subscribe to anything goes? What makes you any better than a typical liberal on this subject?
Gays can't be fiscal hawks, defense hawks and pro-gun? That to me is the only thing I look for in a fellow righty. Self-righteous moralizing is something lefties do.
Wait … you think Homosexuality is a greater sin than murder, incest, idolatry, rape, slavery etc?
If there were groups formed around all those other "moral sins" you listed then people would oppose them also.
Cripes – some of the comments are frightening. I couldn't care less what anyone does in the bedroom – none of my business. Liberty is just that – liberty. These are Americans who are concerned about our freedom – not liberal activists. I would stand with them anywhere, anytime – we have a common cause – freedom and liberty for all.
Pacifist groups, and disgustingly immoral groups shouldn't be a part, as they are there just to divide.
Individuals who belong to those groups are already and will always be there.
No problem with that. Acceptance of individual opinions, or challenging them in the arena of public discussion, should be a part of CPAC, IMO.
But not groups inherently there to 'flaunt their stuff' which will divide.
Show some wisdom CPAC.
If the people have no morals to check against social disintegration, why should they have any freedoms? Read some George Washington on that subject.
Also doesn't mean that I should be excluded b/c i am gay. My only platform is Conservatism…who just happens to have gay members.
I support what you say, but can't give you a thumbs up.
I don't accept the "lifestyle choices" of people who think they have the right to tell others who to nail. Should I push you out of the right?
Where in the constitution does it claim we should care about what two consenting adults are doing in bed?
Our country is headed toward a financial disaster of epic proportions. I don't care what your color/gender/religion/sexual preference is, anyone that is for smaller government, less spending and more tax cuts is my friend.
Stop crying Tommy.
Sexually deviant in YOUR mind. To ensure freedom is to put your personal values aside. Think of freedom of speech. While most believe that what the KKK says is offensive, those dedicated to preserving freedom would fight for their right to speak. Meanwhile, we can approach them and try to persuade them to think otherwise, using our free speech.
If you believe that people who engage in consensual relationships are "deviant," you should work to impress your values on them if that is your choice. However, to use the force of government to impress your values is lazy and wrong.
They are involved. Nobody has or can stop that.
Wearing the 'gay' banner or the 'god hates fag' banner is just to divide, to garner attention.
It's a wasted argument to say they can't participate. Who isn't letting individuals participate?
They do in my town, in our conservative groups. Why not yours?
"The conservative crowd quickly turned on him and forced him to walk off the stage."
I've seen this non sequitur lie in every report about this story. They didn't "turn" on him, they started booing him as he was walking to the podium. It's amazing that all these conservative blogs are willing to tell this lie in lockstep because they also link the video that shows the evidence of the lie. I guess the media principle is that it's okay to lie if you really don't like the guy.
While "sexual orientation" is unimportant, when a group prides itself on how it uses its genitalia and defines itself in an In-your-face way, then they are not just another group, but a group of proselytizing homosexuals, and nobody likes proselytizers, no matter what their religion.
The word, "Pride" is, of course, one of the deadly sins. I am not proud that I am anything except that which I achieved on my own. Heterosexuals are not "proud" that they are straight, and I can't imagine a heterosexual group in a parallel situation.
Besides, like the word, "gay" I resent the word, "proud" or "pride" being co-opted by a splinter group.
Whenever I hear or see the phrase, "gay and lesbian" in addition to the misuse of the word, "gay" I wonder why the word lesbian is necessary. Aren't they "gay" <sic>? Or do lesbians agree with me that the word "gay" is the wrong word?
If homosexuals wish to come to a meeting, they should come as Americans, as individuals and part of the overall structure, not as a separate group spouting some kind of misdirected "Pride" and saying, "Hey look at us – we're homosexuals – live with it."
I think it's that in-your-face attitude that is offensive. The whole point of the tea party movement is that we are NOT groups but individuals. We do not support group-thing. And we are not proud of the particular way we use our genitalia in the privacy of our bedrooms. If a group wants equality, they can't separate themselves. You can't have it both ways.
You are either an American or you are not. We don't care about subsets or subgroups, cults or whatever.
I think that is the point that was made.
If a person is really proud that his is a homosexual, he does not need to tell everyone else. Real pride is contained and constrained. False pride is what goes before a fall.
The words, "gay" and "pride" belong to everyone, not some sect or group outside the mainstream.
Real pride is not even thinking about it or mentioning it.
Very well said….Thanks
Yeah, lets go back to when gays didn't talk about it and women could vote. Ahh, the good old days before our morals degenerated. You didn't even have to eat near a black person!
Exactly.
Bullshit again Dan-o.
There is no amount of name calling that you can do that will get under my skin, or rile me. Nothing. You are purely a case in point, an "overly sensitive little feller" who walks around jousting at windmills, wanting some heterosexual to insult you with some perceived or imagined insult, so you can further get your panties in a knot, and have something to squall about like some bitch slapped drag queen walking around with his ass hanging out at the gay pride parade.
I talk pretty plain. I speake pretty crude. Yet everyone always knows where I stand. I live my life by one rule: I do not judge people. Color, sexual persuasion, abortion issuses; none of it. Those issues are above my pay grade.
My first post to you had nothing derogatory in it, as does this one. It is simply calling a spade a spade. If you don't want to man up, and quit playing the victim, them put your kneepads back on and slither on back to the DNC. Otherwise, shut the hell up and be a man.
America is a Republic/Democracy. Keep your Amer-Taliban Theocracy out of my house and gtfo my lawn! This is what our Founders warned against- I'm sure they were all God fearing people of many stripes and were reasonable enough to realize that it wasn't just one denomination. In fact, a few of our first Presidents were Deists. They warned us of moral equivolence in people just like Hesed- for if they start with the gays,then they move on to another group and then another, and another. They rebelled against moral absolutism, if you remember. We saw this happen before we don't need it again on any side of the aisle to happen again.
Right you are GeoGirl. I grew up on a ranch in No Nevada and we had a big kerfuffle one year over some new bulls we bought. Turns out they were all gay, preferred each other's company and wouldn't service the cows. It was a big deal, as you might imagine because the bulls weren't free and we were a small family cow operation. It took almost a year to get the issue resolved and come spring, there were precious few calves. Not surprisingly, of he scant calves that were born, none were black Brangus…there were all Polled Hereford's (the neighbor's breed of bulls!).
that was just a stupid statement
Well, when you dare speak out for what is right, you have to be a big boy and expect opposition from those either too progressive or too wimpy to take it.
No…
In order to exercise individual freedom, one must have a govenment that has no authority to sanction personal behavior that does not violate another man's individual rights.
When the govenment started regulating marriage it became a legal status rather than a religious ritual. As a legal status, the government can not regulate who gets married based on a religious definition… even if it is a tradition.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"
Pretty black and white, no?
Part 2 Homosexuality along with other "non socially acceptable" behaviors such as incest, pedophilia really come down to what society accepts as ok behavior. For instance, the Journal of Homosexuality encourages "Male Intergenerational Intimacy", which long and short means sex without boundries of age is acceptable. Adult -child sex in other words. Many prominent gay activists are trying to abolish age of consent laws which is what groups like NAMBLA want.
Part 3 Also, one need only to look at the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco as an example of what the gay community is like. The gay community has influenced the American Psyciatric Assoc to redefine its long standing definitions of paraphilias, such as pedophilia. Also, the APA has a study in which is says sex between an adult and child is not only less harmful than beleived but actually helpful for a "willing" child. So tell me, when will you think adult – child sex is acceptable? I would suggest this as reading for all those who accept this lifestyle.
http://www.us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf
Well said Cowboy. ROFL!
your second line is funny….I use to think the same thing till I understood that it actually repulsed me a little..lol.
Yes. Those idiots just love trying to get a response from us.
" Give him wine, who is hard of heart"
Well you know, it's all about 'feelings, whoa whoa whoa, feelings…….'
I mean, why else would they endure all that rejection from family friends, if they weren't born that way.
But the bottom line is this:
This issue isn't about tolerance or discrimination. It's about science. There isn't a scintilla of scientific evidence to prove any human is born homosexual or lesbian. It's all been debunked. Science is the one thing advocates and participants of deviant sexual behavior refuse to discuss – they always bring it back to religion, which is much easier to attack. Advocates of sodomy and lesbian sex have tried to use the civil rights movement to give credibility to their argument. Pushing deviant sexual behavior as somehow part of a "civil rights movement" is just more clever marketing using powerful images. If you're born white, you can't change your skin color to black at will and visa versa. The same as if you're born Asian, you can't suddenly decide you might be Caucasian. We are all which ever race God has chosen for us. http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd444.htm
Wait….there's wine?
Well, Abortion and Rape are absolutely disgusting to me. And to be honest, I don't ever remember being taught tolerance in h.s. about homosexuality….I'm 43 and that topic was not ever discussed.
Sexual orientation is unimportant, people. We face far more important issues that all involve the government infringing on our personal liberty, and the situation is only going to continue getting worse. If there are gay folks who believe in limited government, we ought to welcome them.
We need all the help we can get, and it makes no sense to kick them to the curb because of what they do in their bedrooms.
I agree with that.
it's none of my business, and I'd prefer to keep it that way. If you're gay, or you f*ck goats or whatever, just keep it to yourself.
Are you SERIOUSLY trying to tell me humans are NOT ANIMALS?
Also, you can't claim "violation of natural law" and then say humans are not part of nature to argue the same point when it is pointed out that "natural law" supports homosexual behavior.
So which is it? Are humans part of nature and thus subject to natural law which clearly shows that homosexual behavior is common in animals or are humans not part of nature thus the whole "natural law" argument doesn't apply?
I think you are mistaking "acceptable behavior" for "natural behavior".
Why is goverment involved at any level with someones sexuality in the first place? You can disagree with someone's choice but you have no right to tell them how to behave. As long as that man or women isn't doing anything to hurt anyone else its a non issue. Those of you with no sin case the first stone…
I would agree with you IF the gay community wasn't trying so hard to push their own agenda of acceptance onto the public. Look what happened when decent people didn't fight against extramarital heterosexual sex? Ended up with easy divorces, free love (sex), and broken families. I guess since we let that one get away it is only natural we should let the homosexual agenda have a pass.
Nope. Wrong. Freedom has boundaries.
We do not have true freedoms. There are laws/limits upon our freedoms. We are free to act, within those boundaries.
And no, we're not going to stand here and let you eliminate laws that criminalize behavior you wish to engage in, or to water down legislation that is specific: marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and the law provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.
Many higher animals use homosexual behavior to enforce dominance over others. They certainly are aware of what they are doing.
I agree with Mark Krikorian @ National Review observations on CPAC:
"the fact that David Keene and Grover Norquist, who have the biggest voices in planning CPAC, are on Obama's side against conservatives on many of these areas of disagreement. Specifically, the two of them (along with Bob Barr) smeared opposition to closing Guantanamo and to civilian trials for terrorists in the United States as "scaremongering." When CPAC is run by people sharing the views of the ACLU, CAIR, and Eric Holder, what do you expect?"
The other reason why CPAC is a huge disappointment in fighting for America's Liberty is George WIll's Highly Educated Whites who are exactly the same as Barack Obama's Highly Educated Whites.
Both Will's and Obama's Highly Educated Whites are responsible for Building the American Ghetto.
Gayism is not high on the totem pole of social issues went confronting bigger problems such Death to America.
Im a conserative that wants to abolish the governments ability to define marriage period.
Ruebacca wrote it in a crass and unnessary way, but has a point.
Marriage should be defined by the Curch.
Legal relationships should be defined by government.
Have the State issue Civil Unions to both gay and straight.
Allow churches to decide who they perform services for and who theacknowlage as "married."
Let God sort it out in the end.
Rights should be applied equaly, religion respected, and God kept as the ulitmate judge.
Mr. Smith thanks for your comments – I agree. Mr.Jettboy I also concur. However, SmartthanLibs your using of the
argument that other species exibit other than "natural" sexual behavior does NOT in any way make such behavior
correct. The "norm" as you more than likely know (at least I hope you know) is hetrosexual behavior otherwise I
would NOT be writing this comment to you and you would not read nor would anyone else read it since the species
of "HOMO SAPIENS" would NOT exist. You see God is correct this "NOT NORMAL" behavior is just that – not normal you can try to explain it away all you want that type of behavior is what it is "NOT NORMAL". It's just like the truth Mr.
SmarterthanLibs – the truth is what it is "THE TRUTH" or if you prefer it's like gravity"its there"; both of these items are
constants they DO NOT vary.
Would preserving the institution of marriage include getting rid of divorce? Jailing people who commit adultery? Bulldozing the 24-hour chapels in Vegas?
Has it occurred to anyone from either side of this issue that marriage should not be a government issue?
Why can't any consenting adults enter into contractual agreements with each other? Why do our various levels of government bestow certain privileges to only those contracts between a man and a woman? Why should these unions get preferential treatment over any single person?
If a church blesses unions of which you do not approve or refuses to honor those you do approve, you can attend & donate to another church.
If we are really in pursuit of smaller government and more freedom, shouldn't we approach this issue in such a way? The point is that the government has overstepped on the issue of marriage when the church gave it away. The government needs to get back to the very limited powers outlined in the Constitution.
Giving special tax treatment, legal treatment, medical treatment, etc. to a favored group is unfair, no matter the make up of that group.
So, the REAL solution to this is to get rid of ALL marriage licensing. Get rid of the IRS recognition of a marriage and its different treatment from single people or people in other familial relationships.
Shouldn't our tax laws treat all people equally, regardless of marital status? Do we really need the government's permission to form a family–gay, straight, two-person, multi-person? Believe it or not, plenty of those in the Tea Party movement believe in the government getting out of our lives: http://bit.ly/QaaiY
(continuation from 1st comment)
I don't think that people want to restrict others from exibiting this type of behavior(homosexual)(at least in private) – that would be restricting someone's "FREEDOM" and that is not very American is it.
However, it does NOT mean that I must be , in any way, a part of or confronted with the "CESSPOOL" that is the
"homosexual lifestyle" – you see Mr SmaterthanLibs that is infringing on my "FREEDOM". I say let those who wish to
"live in SIN" do so as they wish but DO NOT expose me to that type of behavior. I simple do not wish in any manner
to view it etc.. It's my hope you can understand this please go in peace.
could be. who are you to say they aren't any more than a religious person who believes in God to say they are? Unless you are saying you are there pastor or priest?
Well… before you responded to me you should have read my post. I am not one of "you guys"… I clearly stated I am straight. I also have a very large pistol and rifle collection and read the bible regularly.
You are just FULL of steriotypes aren't you?
The study was done on those who were very comfortable with their sexuality and those who basically had a phobia about gays.(fear of knowing, being around, just out right hated gays, etc.) I actually don't know who did the study, but I am curious now as to who did it…definitely going to look it up….
Well said…Identity politics has no place in conservatism…though we do seem to have the labels of Log Cabin, Evangelicals, etc. The constitution is at stake here and Gays have to be concerned for it too….they better be, because if a fascist form of government takes over, it is possible they would be purged from the system….
For all of you people declaring "what they do in the bedroon is not business," have you never seen a Gay Pride Parade. They march down the street almost completely naked and simulate disgusting sex acts in full view of the public with familes and children in the area forced to watch. Gay Pride is not about equal rights/freedom. It's about the sexual deviants of society shoving this filth in our face whether we like it or not and then turning around and calling us 'bigots.'
Have any of you been reading the whole "fisting" story over at BigGovernment? Snap out of it.
Actually, there are plenty of Boy Scout Troops and Cub Scout Packs who welcome volunteers–straight and gay. The gay volunteers are respectful in the same way that the straight ones are. They look at the program as a whole and choose to volunteer their time to help make boys more responsible and respectful.
I would suggest people take a look at the goings on in San Francisco as it relates to the gay community and who open they are to deviency. BTW, not safe for work.
http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/
perhaps, but some of us are revolted by it.
"Has it occurred to anyone from either side of this issue that marriage should not be a government issue? "
It has to me and a few others, but since it IS a government issue I am not going to let things slide until it no longer is a government issue.
I was just trying to lighten things up a bit.
Well, I think we can agree that Obama has to go before he destroys anything else…good chatting with you.
So you mean to say because some take part in a gay pride parade they all are to be painted with the same brush??
I am sure I could find a big brush to paint you with as well,
Wake up and quit using the lame ass tactics of the left.
[...] I thought we were intolerant knuckledraggers? Conservatives booed an anti-gay bigot off the stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference last [...]
Yes Dear Leader's days are numbered.
1061 days, or less, until real hope and change comes to Washington. http://obamaclock.org/
Pray for Dear Leader, Psalms 109:8 http://bible.cc/psalms/109-8.htm
I'm fine with this arrangement. Let religious institutions decide whom to bestow the word "marriage" on, which will have no legal standing whatsoever, while for legal purposes "civil unions" all that's recognized for everybody.
When marriage enjoyed a special status in order to permit the married couple to raise children to Society's benefit I could totally agree with Government sanction/involvement, but since Government has taken on the role of parent and removed the need for marriage's status, I totally agree that it should be done away with altogether.
CPAC already did show wisdom and your side lost.
Whoa, slow down…."acceptable behavior" for "natural behavior". ?
You wouldn't be trying to impose your definition of "acceptable behavior" on me, are you?
You tell me….if it is natural then it must be ok, right?
Feel the hate here from the Christian fascists. Its impressive that people who proclaim to love "liberty" and "freedom" wouldn't know either if it bit them on the ass. Liberty does not just apply to repressed social conservatives but to every American. You either believe in freedom or you don't people like Sorba and some commenters here are hypocrites.
Well done to CPAC, the attendees and everyone else who stood up for all conservatives.
Glad you got the gig Bruce.
I don't care what they do in the bedroom. I care what they do in public.
*throwing a stone*
Okay, you're entitled to your opinion.
Peace.
It would be nice to hold a conference, rally, convention, political event, what-have-you, etc. just for conservatives. Not straight conservatives, not gay conservatives, not male conservatives or conservative feminists, or student conservatives, or senior citizen conservatives, or Republican conservatives, or Democrat conservatives, or vegan conservatives…JUST FOR CONSERVATIVES. PERIOD. Why must we always label ourselves? Isn't our mutual ideology enough?
Well said GeoGirl.
As I see it, there are two components to marriage, the spiritual and the civil. Churches, temples, and other religious organizations should have sole discretion to decide the spiritual side of the issue, without government or judicial intervention. If the Unitarians want to condone same sex marriage, and the Lutherans do not, that is their prerogative.
The civil component to marriage is a legal contract between consenting adults. The government's only role in such a contract is to verify that the contract is entered into free of deceit or coercion by either party, and to file the contract or license as a public record. That is it. There is no justification for prohibiting it based on the genders of the two parties.
On a personal level, no I do not approve of same-sex marriage. I am personally repulsed by the idea of homosexual behavior. However, no one requires my approval for their personal decisions, just as I do not live for the sake of any other person. It requires neither tolerance nor acceptance, only a recognition that a person's life is his or her own and is absolutely none of my concern… nor that of anyone else.
That is what liberty means.
I think it’s perfectly acceptable for gay conservatives to want to be included at CPAC. I’ve been watching CPAC for many years, and the spirit of liberty has always been strong with its participants. Conservatives will have a much more successful time implementing their political ideas by winning elections than by decrying how all the activists on the other side ginned up the vote. Pulling together coalitions around a set of core ideals is how it is done. Let’s hope conservatives don’t miss the opportunity.
So long as the Conservative gays aren't lambasting the gay pride paraders, then why shouldn't they be painted with the same brush? Critics are doing the same thing with other anti-gay Christians by using the "God Hates Fags" group (a small independent family run religion by the way) to paint them all the same.
No. I don't see where religion enters into it. The Government sanction was simply so that kids would be raised by two parents, and there would be a financial safety net whereby one parent could possibly raise the kids full time without having to work. That no longer being the case, and with Government taking a more active role in child rearing, there is no need for Big Government to involve itself in any marriage, being whichever genders or numbers of people.
I believe in freedom with responsibility. Otherwise all you have is anarchy.
So what you are saying is one man's deviency is another mans normalacy? Just how far do you go with that ideology as to what is acceptable? Incest, Intergenerational Relationships (man-boy love), etc …
So instead everyone should just shut up whilst you jump up in our face and trying to impose your religious views on us all? No thanks. Tell me again how you hate Big Government and differ from the libs?
Apparently all the voters of "Crazy" Ron Paul's Texas district, who repeatedly elect him to Congress year after year,
are "cultist followers" ???
Sounds like you're the one mouthing the liberal party line. Tool!
Ha!
Exactly.
People worry about the government "forcing" churches to marry gay people. Well, if marriage has nothing to do with the government, then they will never have the power to force anything.
And then, as the saying goes, let the market rule. If people do not want to support a church that performs marriages for gays, that church will wither. If people do not want to support a church that refuses to marry gays, that church will wither.
Free market, free minds, free faith.
GOProud absolutely stands for what conservatism stands for. From their website: " GOProud is committed to a traditional conservative agenda that emphasizes limited government, individual liberty, free markets and a confident foreign policy."
Bruce is a true conservative, and I was happy to make his acquaintance at CPAC and to have him in the conservative movement.
I'm not sure what the bible has to do with public policy. If you think enforcing religious views on others is what conservatism is all about, then you clearly have no clue what conservatism stands for.
Yet, Black Democrats think homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle and vote accordingly as shown by Prop. 8's win:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/18/a...
Naturally, the Democrat regime in Washington DC won't let the mostly Black city vote on the definition of marriage for fear of a Prop. 8 repeat:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Human-rig...
The fact that the DC GOP supports this move reinforces the "Republicans hate Black people" line pushed by the MSM.
So, the GOP would be better off standing by its principles instead of sacrificing them on the altar of PC.
I am sorry for my insensitivity…
I am forgetting all of the dick-Americans throughout history that have bravely served in the military. How thoughtless of me.
Oh I totally agree….I guess I gave it more creedance b/c i am gay and that it validated my personal experiences…but, I am going to find out who did the study so I can be more in tune if there was some type of agenda here….good talking to you though…
"FOR THE HISTORICAL RECORD:
Every president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has made use of the teleprompter. Isn't it interesting that only the black guy got criticized for actually using it. Coincidence? I wonder."
This is a perfect example of how the left twists everything. No one is criticizing him for merely using it. We laugh at him for being completely beholden to it, a fact that EVEN HIS OWN STAFF HAS ADMITTED. It is a crutch for this President like none before.
And seriously, the race card? Pathetic.
I don't understand what you are trying to say Hesed. Could you clarify?
"Who isn't letting individuals participate?"
" They should have rejected the gay groups. There is nothing 'conservative' about being sexually deviant. "
These seem to be a contradiction….am I missing something?
I haven't seen many gay people having sex in public, but maybe I don't frequent the same places as you.
This has nothing to do with God or Christians, but rather do we "accept" the acts of homosexuality as being part of the norm. As the APA will tell you, even Adult – Child sex can be healthy for a child, so do we accept that little tidbit of "acceptance" and now say adults can have sex with consenting children?
Amer-Taliban, what a frikkin joke you uneducated buffon. If we were the so called Amer-Taliban homosexuality would be accepted, I suggest you take a look at the Taliban Rule No. 19 that instructs that Taliban fighters must not take young boys without facial hair into their private quarters. Or Suras 78:31, 37:40-48, 44:51-55). And for those Muslim warriors for whom women are not of interest, there will be young pre-pubescent boys at their service — and they will be like “scattered pearls” of “perpetual freshness” (Suras 52:24, 56:17, 76:19) The majority of Taliban fighters are Pushtin who are quite accepting of man-boy relationships. Google it if you can spell.
Individuals are participating. You cannot deny that. Nobody can stop that. We have gays in conservative groups here.
Groups, especially the 'god hates fags' and 'gay groups' are there just to divide. Not to help/participate. They should be rejected as intolerant and deviant.
Public schools can't even teach math and science correctly, yet its teh gheys that get you riled up? Give me break. Personally I'd like to see school choice so kids can get a better education, but perhaps that's the solution to your concerns as well. Send your kids wherever you like to learn whatever you please about gays, though I hope for their sake the quality of the education is foremost in choosing a school.
Do you care what heterosexuals do in public?
Is it okay with you if a man and a woman get down and make the two-backed beast on the steps of city hall at high noon?
Can heterosexual men and women walk around in outrageous dress?
Might a 45 year old man discuss the intricacies of heterosexual behavior with your tween daughter at school?
For most people, the answers to the above are all "no".
The problem with such behavior is the bringing of what should be private expressions into the public sphere. Whether they are heterosexual or homosexual is fundamentally irrelevant to their social acceptability.
To distinguish beyond that on the basis of sexual preference is no less bias than to discriminate based on race, religion, or social status of the individuals engaging in such behavior, and as such is no less a violation of the American principle of equality under the law.
Apart from disagreeing with you about homosexuality's origins, I applaud you for not trying to legally FORCE me to accept.
However, the image of "homosexual = Nazi" is due to the "gay marriage" crowd, who scream they are "oppressed" because their couplings are accurately called civil unions. So, the "gay marriage" crowd tramples on the basic constitutional rights of Americans (voting, free speech, etc.) while screaming "I'm a victim."
And let's not going into the amount of violence, death threats, and bigotry these guys engage in:
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/01/25/dear-cindy-m...
http://banshirleyqliquor.typepad.com/
http://holycoast.blogspot.com/2008/11/n.html
So, like Muslims, homosexual conservatives will be viewed with skepticism until they prove they desire co-existence instead of tyranny.
Oh, you mean like the author of this very article did in an interview with Ed Morrissey? How about you get a clue before opening your mouth to spread your bigotry.
I belive that the ulitmate test of acceptence is being able to laugh at each others expence, and still be able to get along well enough to work togather on the issues that matter-
So when you read this post understand that the humor might be seen as homophobic, but my hart is not:
Hopefully we can laugh togather and move toward increased personal freedoms.
GOProud is exposing a hard issue that has been growing for quite some time. Its about time that CPAC got on top of the movement and really drove it home. Conseratives need to open themselves up to GOproud and the Log Cabin Republicans. I'm not saying that we have to bend over backwards, we just need to relax acknowlage that they have a place standing right behind us- on the isses at hand. i realise that some of us may find this uncomfortable at first. Thats okay. You dont have to like it. Its just tolarence.
Remember, at the end of the day we are all in this togather. The Left Wing media doesnt care if youre gay or staight, they simply will call us all Teabaggers.
So in that spirit, let us stand togather side by side and hand in hand. Togather let us fight the foces of big governmet and insure the blessing of liberty to every American.
Yet you feel free to say the same thing about gay conservatives…
Well said, Bruce. But neither the fringe of the movement (loudest) or the government (always looking for more power) will be so tolerant and level headed.
I don't know who you are responding to, but to answer your question; Yes I do care what heterosexuals do in public.
Then as I said, it is the actions, not the orientation that are the issue.
A relatively simple standard.
So all that matters is money, right?
@GeoGirl
So, in your worldview:
*America should support rape because that's the mean through which Tasmanian devils reproduce.
*America should support cannibalism because that's common among the praying mantis species.
*America should legalize eating vomit because that's what dogs do.
*America should legalize theft since in nature larger animals like lions steal food from smaller ones.
And so on.
Just pointing out how you can't use animal behavior to justify human homosexuality without opening the door to condoning other dumb and/or immoral behavior.
If you believe in freedom of choice and government non interference with people who aren't hurting anyone else… well, you believe in that all the way.
The guy who said it isn't just one small area where liberty applies is right.
Do I agree with the idea of being gay? No. Do I say that a person shouldn't be allowed to or should be shut out because of it from all of society? No.
Also, were it not for the gay issue with the political parties, there would be a lot more gay conservatives – based on issues of taxation, freedom to drive what cars they want, energy costs etc. (Not to mention the numerous pro-gun gays out there who own firearms for sports or personal protection.)
Well, I agree in principle, but you can't change people, or their opinions, if, as individuals, they are not welcome, and engaged.
Government should not discriminate for ANY reason. Individuals should be ALLOWED to discriminate for any reason.
Apparently. They can't stand it when people step on their ricepaper, or threaten their house of cards with the wind of truth.
Hesed, I can understand your anger if that is the case. They should be sent packing if they seem to want identity politics, that is the lefts bailiwick….not conservatives.
My neighbor is a conservative gay that is a respectable, quiet and conservative man. He does not talk about his sex life, his choice, or his rights as a gay man. He talks about the concern for the Constitution and liberty, just like you and I….these folks we must be embraced IMHO. ;^)
By which I mean… being gay isn't my cup of tea but if someone else makes that personal choice, oh well…. don't thrown them out for it.
LMAO…
I am an idiot but you are the one who's hypocrisy was exposed in quick order….
You are due for some self examination.
I used to raise both rabbits and mice (not at the same time…lol!)….and YES, there are homosexual rabbits and homosexual mice. And apparently, there are homosexual cows from Texas too! Talk to any rancher or farmer and they will tell you the same.
It always astounds me to hear people talking about how homosexuality is a sin against God when CLEARLY God created so many different beings who are homosexual. Silly really…..makes me wonder how much of it has to do with hyper-puritanical attitudes about sex in general and how much is really religion.
Sounds rather like Mardi Gras but not having ever been to either, I really don't care. Since this is behavior taking place in public, such is subject to public scrutiny. Are there no laws already on the books about sex in public spaces or public nudity? I do believe there are.
Two key words in you post: "San" and "Francisco".
'Nuff said.
Absolutely agreeing with you on that one!
As I said elsewhere, you don't go to your new job and announce you're gay, so why do we accept groups that are there just to make their sexual choices, or their opposition to sexual choices, a litmus test for being a part in their groups?
They, by self proclamation, are being intolerant by forming exclusive, accept me or else, groups.
Nobama is a Kos person just trying to troll for conservative bigotry. Ignore.
"Marriage" had, previous to governmental regulation, been ONLY a religious ritual. So any limitation on marriage that is not "equal under the law" (such as recognizing gender) is based on the religious teachings of SOME religions. I say "some" because there are religions that do perform same sex marriage rituals. The ONLY solution is to remove ANY regulation around marriage that is not designed to protect the individual rights of others. Laws preventing the legal marriage of two 40 year old men simply are rediculous and unconstitutional.
Some of you people are pretty disgusting… those in he Ryan Sorba camp. Do us all a favor and get out of the Republican party and form your own little hate filled scumbag party. Call it the 'Inbred Jeds'.
And freedom always has a cost. Usually that is in blood.
What an absolutely perfect description of Progressivism and all of its variants (Facism, Stalinism, National Socialism, and so forth.)
Sexual orientation means nothing in the political arena – I personally don't care what anyone else does in the privacy of their own home. The only time it means something is when the liberals attempt to smear "us" as being anti-gay, as though the actions of one bigot are somehow a reflection upon all of us. God forbid the press and the public ever discover the truth – that we care far less about gay and racial issues than liberals. And they only care about them as something to delightfully smear us with.
The proof would be in their actions for me. I am labeled an Evangelical as a sub group of the GOP. To me the test is in their view of conservative principles. I will say it again, IDENTITY POLITICS DO NOT BELONG IN CONSERVATISM…and just because there is a sub group under the tent, it does not mean they are going to take on issues specific to their sub group. It comes down to Constitutional principles only! If you say that at your meetings I think you might find it will resonate with others to see that there may be a subversive movement in your group….
No, you're not religious either.
uhh lets think about this for a sec….
as a conservative I do not seek to impose my "personal" choices on you and do not expect you to push your's on me… ok… we can all understand this..
I look to encourage restraint in government as I see gov's purpose it to provide a safe fertile environment for people to pursue their ideas.
IF I were a gay conservative, I would think my position would be,
although I do not agree with the in your face approach of some of the GP groups that is their choice to be so vocal, not mine. I would not support their actions.
So why should I be associated with the GP groups.? just because I am gay?
I am a white male American, does that mean I support skinheads?? they are white mostly male Americans..
Quit using leftist tactics, assigning everyone to their little groups is a leftist tactic.
You are seriously using the reason that "Critics" are using a "God Hates Fags" claim…
What Critics are these? Leftist? who the hell cares what leftist critics think…
They are simply going through the leftist playbook,
I am not a Biblical scholar however just the words "God – Hates" in a statement sends up red flags imo… Leftist HATE.
Leftist divide and conquer… it is what they do.
Leftist want to maintain the illusion that a Gay person could not possibly be conservative.
That in itself is a ridiculous assumption.
Making use of a teleprompter and relying on it for almost everything are pretty different…just sayin'.
Jettboy, since you can't cite a single instance of the Constitution, Federalist Papers, Declaration of Independence, etc. that has anything to do with homosexuality (or heterosexuality for that matter!), perhaps you should drop this line of reasoning.
The Founding Fathers clearly didn't care about whether people were gay or straight. They cared about whether they were male or female, white or black, a natural-born citizen or immigrant….but again NOWHERE do the founding documents of our country make any mention of sexuality (hetero or homo) as being protected or discriminated by the government.
Since the conservative movement these days is being led by independents and those who love liberty, not radical religious conservatives, I doubt that there will be a huge rift in conservative ranks. We are seeing a new dawning of conservatism in our country and it is not going to be defined by your narrow interpretation of what a true conservative is.
@Luisced
I suggest you read this:
http://www.equip.org/articles/answering-the-gay-c...
Hesed,
I understand where you are coming from, but allow me to provide you a link to http://www.narth.org
Take a look, they've got some pretty compelling and logical data that may help you in future debates on this subject. Sorry to be a little vague, but as you have already discovered, it can be easy to be labeled a bigot when expressing your conflicts with homosexually and homosexual lifestyles. Let me know what you think!
As a life long gay conservative I don't give a damn what any of you think. Nor should you care what I think of you. Very rarely have I felt the hate from the 'right' that I do from the left. Granted, though not closeted, I am not an "in your face" gay man. I am just a man in a country I love and would dye for. Period! I believe in God, country and the rights of the individual. When I hear a religous zealot demonize my life style I just laugh. Remember Jimmy Swaggert <sp> Jim Baker? Aren't we all just human? Children of God? When sharia law comes to America (God forbid) they will executed us all side by side. Wake up bigots and intolerants.. You need me as much as I need you! Cheers.
I was in the room during this exchange. It was definitely a surprising and encouraging reaction from the CPAC audience.
Well written article Bruce!
Good stuff. Thanks for the link.
Amen.
Exactly.
If you engage in homosexuality, that's your business. However, if a conservative homosexual wants to use the government to FORCE people to celebrate his lifestyle, then he's as bad as any socialist.
That's the beauty of free speech.
Actually BenDejo, there are many areas of the world where AIDS and HIV affect a higher percentage of the respective straight population than gay population….take Africa for instance. Gays in Africa became aware of the need for condom use close to 20 years ago and those in urban areas have embraced condom use. However, cultural mores have prevented widespread condom usage among straight Africans and the result has been utter devastation.
AIDS is a sexually-transmitted disease, no more, no less. Any group of people that doesn't use condoms is going to have a much higher rate of transmission. Many heterosexuals in our country often use condoms to prevent pregnancy, so naturally HIV transmission will be lower. Before AIDS was diagnosed and publicized, condom use among homosexual males was very low because there was no need to prevent pregnancy. Simple as that.
LMAO…
I was merely pointing out that "natural behavior" is not the same as "acceptable behavior" no matter what definition either you or I attribute to it. "Natural behavior" is instinct driven while "acceptable behvior" is defined by societal mores… just like something "being ok" is defined by you and is different for every person on the planet. THIS is why the government was not given the authority do define "acceptable" or "ok"… they knew that those definitions would change over time. Their goal was CONSISTEN APPLICATION OF THE LAW… this is ONLY possible when government is limited to protection of individual rights. YOU do not have the individual right to define "acceptable" for me so long as my behavior doesn't violate your rights. Two 40 year old men getting married can't even abstractly be considered a violation of one of your individual rights.
I will alter my favorite quotation on the subject of gays in America, by Teresa Nielson Hayden: "Basically, I figure gays are like guns: They seem a lot more sinister and threatening until you get to know a few; and once you have one in the house, you can get downright defensive about them."
Younger GOPers have obviously learned this. Older ones like the Cheney's, too.
Actually, Black Democrats are tougher on homosexuality overall that the "Religious RIght" is.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/18/a...
White homosexual liberals tolerating the racists in their ranks doesn't help:
http://holycoast.blogspot.com/2008/11/n.html
http://www.bookerrising.net/2008/11/la-shawn-barb...
http://banshirleyqliquor.typepad.com/
This situation makes Democrat Conventions very interesting to watch.
This is EXACTLY why America is degenerating into a moral abyss of irrelevance… because modern day morons can not understand that ADULTERY (whether homosexual or heterosexual) is WRONG!!!! WRONG!!!! YOU IDIOTS!!!! Just ask Tiger Woods, and all the aftermath of his sin, you infantile, illiterate, uneducated, effete imbeciles.
True love is not giving a person the license to do what they want, but correcting them so they can have an opportunity at eternal salvation.
Is everyone on this comment board a Pagan???
You just attempted to counter an argument by using inflammatory words. You lost.
Most of the really awful anti-homo stuff posted on here is FROM LEFTISTS posing as "regular" contributors. We see it all the time and flag it or pan it. It's done so the lefties can point back here and say "look what hateful things those awful neocons write!" But it's typically not neocons or righties doing it; it's leftists.
Anyway, since you're obviously NOT a regular, you wouldn't know anything about any of this anyway. You're just another know-nothing, comfy in your provincial world BIGOT, aren't you?
I suggest you check out the Folsom Street Fair out in San Francisco. I doubt any heterosexuals would get away with what goes on during this street fair for the homosexual community.
BenDejo – homosexuality is NOT a behavioral issue. Many animals throughout the whole of God's Kingdom are homosexual…from cows to rabbits to mice to HUMAN BEINGS. Please learn some science!
In all fairness, pro-gay Republicans Ahnuld (CA) and Dede Scozzafava (NY) proved pretty socialist on economic issues.
Ex-VP Dick Cheney was a defense hawk until he supported the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell." He doesn't understand that letting open homosexuality in the ranks is as bad as letting men and women soldiers shower together. In the long term, ending DADT will HURT national security as fewer Americans will want to join an overly PC military.
So, it's not unfair to ask if homosexual Republicans put their lifestyle ahead of America's long term survival.
My friend, I beleive in a concept called "Natural Law" which means that thing work best when we use them according to their nature. Please tell me what part of "God created them male and female" you don't understand? Same sex attraction is not normal, nor is it part of God's plan for men and women. He created the sexes to be complementary, and together they can be co-creators with God to bring forth new life. Children fair better in homes with a married mother and father than they do in any other parenting situation. The gay rights activitists have changed the debate from "why does any individual experience same sex attraction?" to "it's a totally normal human experience and your disagreement with it makes you a bigot". Dig deeper, my friend and you'll find there are many SSA individuals who are unhappy and incomplete in their lifestyle choice. For more information from folks who can say this better than I, please visit:
http://www.narth.org
http://www.exodusinternational.org
http://article.nationalreview.com/390884/the-futu...
So, I guess if CPAC opposes socialism then conservatives must be in the closet socialists.
BleepBleepBleep: when the tea party revolution rolls around, I want you on my side! Second Amendment Sisters, unite! lol
I think this whole debate just goes to show how much further we conservatives have to go before people stop judging others solely on their sexuality. There was a time for conservatives when Catholics weren't welcome, Jews weren't welcome, blacks weren't welcome. Now, it's 'gays aren't welcome'. I'd like to think we have matured beyond that, but clearly there are still some people who care more about a narrow religious agenda than about true liberty and freedom.
To the people trying to push them out of the tent, you can't have it both ways. You can't reject gay people who want to join the fight against socialism and then condem them for voting democrat…. because of their sexuality….
I agree to a point, but only to a point. The gay lifestyle, no matter how much it is changing currently, still remains contrary to the historical culture that established this country and has existed for last 200+ years. Additionally, it is a lifestyle that is contrary to accepted societal norms in the majority of nations across the globe, and the majority of religions across the globe. Now all of that being said, i could almost go along with the idea that sexual preference should not be a matter of politics, until you look at the full court press of the gay politically active community pushing for special protections in work, school, and every other aspect of life. It's ok to deny the bible a place in school libraries, but childrens' books on having gay parents must be there. When i see GOProud standing up lambasting agenda driven education in our schools across the board, then i will be right behind them cheering them on, but so far the gay community has shown no opposition to what some of the most rabid of their political activists say or do.
Why should there be "civil unions" or "marriage" as a civil (gov't) entity? Gov't involvement in marriage is a newer, progressive invention. As to the spiritual side and the people involved and their church deciding, I agree wholeheartedly, which is the way it was for most of our nations history. It is not about marriage or the presumed "rights" that come from the union, it is the respect that used to be associated with the commitment of the marriage vows. The progressive and their willing lemmings have worked very hard to destroy this religious (spiritual) issue by making it a civil (secular) issue.
The problem is progressive involvement and their constant "making" of new rights. Our Constitution is very clear that the federal government is given limited rights with all others being reserved to the states and the people.
BTW, pursuit of happiness comes from the Greek virtues of a good life.
That's meaningless. You are still looking and finding a group to be bigoted about. I also never said I was pro- or ant-gay marrige.
Keep on trying. Wait, now we have to bring up religion, as well.
Typical. Can't discuss the topic without attacking the individual, or Christianity, can ya?
So did you slither on over from Bruce's call out to his homies via twitter?
Go ahead and throw out that diversionary arguement if you will, because you are right- sin is sin and we're all sinners. HOWEVER- two men (or women) raising a child is not, and will NEVER be, the same as my husband and I conceiving and rearing our child (who is due in May).
This whole "gay sex is as bad as extramarital hetero sex" argument is a mute point. What conservatives should be concerned about is the furture of the family unit in America, and the rights of children to a married mother and father. Adults can do as they wish, but our youngest and most vulnerable have rights too, which the gay movement seems to have no problem trampling on.
Sorry but when a statistical anomaly is outside the norm than it is classified as deviating from the norm or a deviant trait. Also while you may wish to classify humans as an animal species, until you can explain why humans have the ability for rational thought while all other animals do not, then using that as a reason is known as a strawman.
An example: Animal species also have members who kill their mate or young, so does that mean murder is not a deviant behavior?
There is nothing self-destructive about adult consensual sex when it is safe sex occurring in a loving relationship. Nothing. And there is nothing self-destructive about being a homosexual man or woman. No negative consequences, no harm done to others or to themselves.
I can think of lots of behaviors which are self-destructive and have negative consequences….living a life openly as a homosexual and loving someone of the same sex is not one of them.
An adulteress is someone who took wedding vows and then betrayed them. She harmed her marriage, her husband, and her children with her faithlessness. Show me the harm in being a homosexual!!!
Homosexuality isn't any worse than any other sin in the Bible.
However, in every age, certain sins are more aggressively promoted and even legalized than others. In the 19th century, slavery was legal so that sin was the one widely denounced by un-PC Christians like Frederick Douglas were deemed "intolerant" as a result. Douglas persisted because he was on God's side on the social issue of slavery:
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.”
–1 Timothy 1:8-10
Well over a century later, Americans are baffled how our ancestors could miss the obvious that slavery was evil.
In our day, it is PC to say homosexuality is normal and healthy even if the Bible clearly states otherwise. So, homosexuality is the sin that nearly rivals abortion in the amount of heated political debate it stirs in Americans. And a century from now, people will ask "How could Americans not see that homosexuality like slavery is not pleasing to God?"
Right on!
Freedom is about being able to do with your life what you WANT to do and accept the CONSEQUENCES of your actions, both positive and negative.
In the long run, it isn't going to matter what people white people in the West think about homosexuality, as they will not be setting the agenda in the future. I'm sure once this issue is settled, earnest liberty concerned thinkers will be debating 3-D pornography replete with avatars.
I think you meant "moot" point.
In theory the average Gay or Lesbian would seem to want to adhere most successfully with a more conservative ideology. The idea that individual liberty to make decisions about your own life is an inherent right that we are all born with. Whether you believe you are born gay or acquire it through some combination of external factors you are left with a choice about living your life following the dictates or others or following your own conscience to the best of your abilities. There are some gays and lesbians that take that idea to heart and try and live that ideal as best they are able. Many more would do well to do the same. Its too bad that many gays and lesbians are brainwashed into believing that following leaders that speak about individual rights often implement policies that would tear down those very rights many fight and die for.
Whether a group agrees 100% with this or that particular policy position is frankly irrelevant. Ronald Reagan suggested that when someone signs on to his bandwagon they are agreeing with him and not necessarily the other way around.
Its a pity how some that are all sound and fury about fighting against those that trying to build up a system that destroys individual liberty would in the same breath strike down those that would be the most natural of allies. A question for all…. Where is the real threat to the way you live your life?
I would venture an opinion: your username is not particulary "conservative".
I am a Baptist minister whose theology is pretty traditional. That having been said.
We can debate same-sex marriage. But I believe intensely in freedom. There are lots of other things people do that I do not personally agree with. But I have far more in common with gay conservatives than I do with straight "progressives". Discovering gay conservatives was a pleasant shock for me. Wow! Intelligent and rational people! Who happen to be gay. My blog links to Gay Patriot and I read it regularly.
I understand that some conservatives care more about the cultural issues than others. But I think conservatives do well to include and listen to gay conservatives even if some still respectfully disagree on issues like marriage and adoption.
I would rather live in an America that is free, prosperous and safe… and has same-sex unions…
Than in an America that is poor, miserable, and dangerous… and has same-sex unions.
Which is what we will get if we do not join forces and crush into irrelevance and obscurity the Left – which right now is doing everything it can to exploit this window of opportunity.
Anytime, I stumbled across it just a few weeks ago. Have you ever read anything that rings with the clarity of truth? That's exactly how I felt after pouring through their site. It just makes too much sense, and it has made me much more apathetic and understanding of homosexual persons.
You are pathetic.
There is no wondering what happens later. You claim to be a man of God, you should know that.
Your need to force your beliefs on others is not "conservative" either.
Hypocrite.
Science? I think my IQ dropped about 10 points just reading this thread.
Normally if I want that sort of IQ drain I watch culturally deprived TV.
No wonder I thought CPAC was asinine.
@Briany
Speaking of studies on homosexuality, BMC Psychiatry published a report on the issue back in 2008. This part struck me:
While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment. Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark – the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality – both die on average in their early 50's, or in their 40's if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id...
Here's what's interesting about this study is that it is based on SECULAR evidence. Yet, like the Bible, the results point to homosexuality ultimately being no good for those who engage in it. Furthermore, a homosexual's environment has no impact on whether he chooses to commit suicide over his lifestyle.
Hence, you can pass many hate crime laws as you want and homosexuals still will have issues. So, given the evidence, the problem is internal (the mind) not external ("homophobia")..
Well some people won't and you can't legislate them to either.
gripe, gripe
Anything to add to the thread topic? Or is attacking a poster all you can say?
Cool. It's a good resource. Personally, I like what Devvy Kidd said over at http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd444.htm
perfect
Rape is the way Tasmanian Devils reproduce. So, I assume Christians and Americans overall should celebrate not condemn Roman Polanski for raping a little girl. After all, if rape is natural for Devils, then we humans should condone and even legalize such behavior.
This is why Christians should NEVER use animal behavior to justify our sins. We wind up opening the flood gates to all sorts of nonsense.
You keep siting this study – citation, please? I can't find anything when I google.
For me it's simply, "Does it really matter what these affectionate people do—so long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses!" Mrs. Patrick (Beatrice Stella Tanner Campbell) Campbell (1865–1940)
Others have already addressed the issue of ranking sin and how silly it is. I agree, but I do think that certain behaviors require more work to truly forsake. Sexual sin is one of those. However, engaging in homosexual behavior is no different than other forms of fornication. But somehow I bet you have no problem with your children's premarital sex.
Tha kind of attitude is exactly why I have such a problem with the modern evangelical movement.
Unless the two married guys deny a city's constitutional right to vote. See Washington DC which can't vote on the definition on marriage because it's politically incorrect:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Human-rig...
I won't go into the irony of Democrats denying a mostly Black city their voting rights after saying for YEARS that the GOP is racist.
The sad part is that the DC GOP is so afraid of being labeled "homophobic" that they won't call out the pro-homosexual/anti-Black Dems on their hypocrisy.
What's really fascinating is how the leftists use gay terms to slur their political rivals.
Guess Tom never meant a Muslim.
Amen!
That's the real issue. Animals are dumb beasts who will follow their instincts. We human beings are sentient and have every right to ask if any behavior including homosexuality is moral and healthy. So, to not raise the question really does make human beings mere dumb beasts.
Nothing good will come for having homo groups in cpac. Wait for it, that's all you have to do.
Meaning, instead of trying to pile on more layers of bureaucracy to "solve" a perceived problem, should we look to start repealing laws.
Why not have the churches reclaim what they abdicated? Why not have churches define marriage according to their faith's beliefs and have corresponding legal contracts available to the couples they are marrying? For those who don't need or want the church blessing, they can enter into a civil contract that is legally binding.
Having the church directly involved in setting up those civil contracts for their followers would strengthen their version of marriage. For instance, Catholics may require classes before marrying a couple. After fulfilling those requirements, they can be married in the church and the church will file the proper contracts on their behalf.
I would think that THIS method of thinking of the issue would do more to strengthen marriage than banning certain people from the practice. Violating the terms of your civil contract would constitute breach of contract. The church-sanctioned contracts could also have provisions for counselling with members of the church.
do you even know what a marxist is? don't bother to reply, I am signing off – this thread is truly for the ignorant and stupid
I get three thumbs up and you got another thumbs down on this? I fixed it. I wonder where some people's thumbs are at.
ExRepublican – if you are a true believer in liberty, then you may want to think about rejoining the Republican Party…..the conservative movement which is sweeping across the country right now is not part of the radical religious right…it is supported by independent lovers of liberty who are taking our party and our country back. The CPAC convention, in which a hatred-spewing religious bigot was booed offstage, is VERY indicative of the types of conservatives who have been energized by the events of the past few years.
You don't have a "constitutional right to vote" on individual laws. You have a "constitutional right to vote" for a representative who then votes on the laws on your behalf. Voting on gay rights bills is an abstraction from any actual constitutional right that you may have. NOWHERE in the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA does it grant the right for people to vote on laws. Certain states have added such rights to their own constitutions and some have not.
It is really annoying when people rant about issues they have absolutely no understanding of.
Actually you are wrong as the Founders and the Founding documents relied on GOD and the Bible as a basis while adding in values/principles which coincided with the Judeo-Christian values/principles, which can be seen throughout the writings.
Perhaps the most over-used and misunderstood quote is from the Declaration of Independence:
1. Most used: I have the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
2. In context: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Same-sex marriage is intensely unpopular even here in California. Hence why the people always vote it down every time. I've even met a few gays who are against it as well. (It's a fun world!) One thing that interests me about it, is that though it is an unpopular sentiment (just as a "gay" lifestyle seems to be) if you voice that you are against said lifestyle or legislation, you tend to be shouted down or labeled bigot or other such asinine nonsense. This tells me a couple things. One, some gays can't handle any opposing opinions and fall back on progressive style personal attacks. Two, no matter how much you try, you can't legislate public opinion.
This guy who was shouted down wasn't really prepared for it. (Which is dorky right there. If he was going to condemn CPAC, be ready for the backlash darn it!) Furthermore, why even broach the subject? Homosexuals can be conservative in some ways. I see no reason to omit them -unless- they are interesting in legislating public opinion.
I like you rickwright! I'm a gay conservative who also reads (and has met) GayPatriot. I'm a Christian first, American second, and gay person a distant third or fourth. The biggest internal threat to America is creeping socialism. We need to take the next exit off "The Road to Serfdom." The biggest external threats are things like a nuclear "suitcase from Allah" smuggled into a city via shipping container or who knows what. I am far more concerned about the socialization of 1/6 of the economy, or Iran getting nukes, than whether California calls it "marriage" or "civil union." We need to unite as free human beings against the really pressing challenges we face.
Democrats are great at whipping up their motley collection of special interests over single issues, but we need to see the big picture and refuse to be single issue voters. You get it. I get it. We need to see the big picture, and gay marriage does not qualify as big picture no matter which side of it you're on.
[...] has a post at Big Journalism that must read, if it’s the only blog post you read all week, The HomoCon Tipping Point: Why CPAC Was a Milestone Weekend for Gays The conservative bloggers who were actually at CPAC and who actually witnessed the Sorba tirade [...]
Believe me, if she was punching the inside of your tummy as much as she is mine, you would know she is denfinately a "who" and not a "what"! Makes me wonder how anyone can.
Exactly, Darogr…..Lindsey and Anne are both unstable, needy women who would have a relationship with ANYONE (male or female) that offers them the love and attention and the limelight they crave. Let's talk about some actual gay men and women who were clearly born gay. It's not asking for 'special' rights to want to be at the hospital bedside of your loved one or to want legal protection and guidance for passing on inheritances, etc.
I can't even appreciate snow without being a racist these days apparently.
But we can all agree white snow is better than yellow snow!
I think what we've seen here is a rejection by conservatives today of anything that is off-message. Our concerns are about large and invasive government, out of control spending, and personal responsibility in politics. The gay agenda is not on there, either for or against.
But we need to ask ourselves crucial questions: What battles are most critical? Which ones are we willing to lose in order to win the important ones? Is safeguarding our free-market system worth sacrificing the integrity of our families?
Was what Ryan Sorba said incorrect? Or was he wrong to say it at the time and place that he did?
Personally, I think it may be a bit naïve to think we can fight only one battle at a time. And more, I think doing so is self destructive. By allying with groups who's agenda does not match our core ideologies, we run the risk of progressive influence within our own movement.
And for this reason, I think CPAC erred in accepting GOProud as a sponsor. McCobin's acceptance of the GOProud decision plays up the accepting and inclusive nature of modern conservatives. But on this footing, conservatives and Republicans can never win against progressives and Democrats: this is their turf.
Even as we fight against the fundamental transformation of America into a socialist state, we should also be fighting against the fundamental transformation of the American family. The issue might not be at the forefront of todays politics, but it will return. Will we be ready? And what will the party lines be when it does?
It about time that we Conservatives welcome alternative lifestyles into the Republican Party. Do we really have the right to criticize those whose practices lead to AIDS? We will gain a tremendous amount of votes by mandating homosexuality in the military and endorsing male/male penetrative 'marriage' – two issues that GOPride is pushing. In all seriousness, if this is the future of Conservatism – YOU CAN COUNT ME OUT!
when they teach Sodomy to kindergarteners they should be shot in the head. perverts
Teaching fisting and sodomy to kindergarteners is fine by you? Perverts
I think his point is that Conservativism should not accept "group" identity over Conservative identity. Think about it, how many conservatives would find it acceptable for CPAC to be sponsored by Westboro Baptist Church? Meanwhile CPAC accepts GOProud which seems to be more focused on their sexual identity than their conservative identity. Perhaps they will show they are conservatives who also happen to be homosexual, however it would have been better to see the actions before acceptance.
We, as conservatives, have seen Progressives work their way into every political entity which leads with disastrous results. Those of us who are Christian have seen is similar infiltration into religious entities (RCC, ECUSA, ELCA, et.al.) with disastrous results. So we are concerned when a group appears to be more focused on their group identity than on their conservative identity when affiliating with a conservative organization.
So homosexuals have infiltrated CPAC? Big deal. Most of us already know that CPAC and the ACU are shells of what they once were. This article should tell you all you need to know about CPAC:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2289098/po...
No conservative should have any affiliation with CPAC or the ACU as long as David Keane has anything to do with it.
So homosexuals have infiltrated CPAC? Big deal. Most of us already know that CPAC and the ACU are shells of what they once were. This article should tell you all you need to know about CPAC:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2289098/po...
No conservative should have any affiliation with CPAC or the ACU as long as David Keane has anything to do with it.
Ahhh, the standard reply from a PROGRESSIVE, projecting their own intolerance, aka CRIS (Cranial-Rectal Inversion Syndrome)
You need serious medical help and please do not wait for ObamaoCare.
If you want to be gay than be gay. Don't expect special treatment from the rest of us. I'm a minority but don't refer to myself as a minority. I check my culture at the door as a conservative because it's about the principles not your hang ups. If you want people to feel sorry for ya than join the democrats and become a liberal.
I don't agree with homosexulity but if you want to sleep with another man in the privacy of your own home than do so. Just don't push your militant homosexual agenda on me. You woudn't like it if I "forced" people to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour though it will save them from Eternal Damnation. There should not be a double standard.
Also, the college student is the future of the Conservative movement? What? Isn't this the same demographic that help put the "marxist in chief" in office? Sorry, just because you are the future doesn't give you the right to railroad the rest of us. The way it works with conservativism is plain and simple. Get a job first, than raise a family if you want too, get a house, pay some bills and taxes, get some life experience and than come back and talk to me. Just because you graduate from college smarter, let life give you some experience and gain some wisdom. Intelligence and Wisdom are two very different things. Just ask Barack Obama.
The following comments are not a commentary on McCobin or Sorba. Perhaps I will comment on that more directly later. Rather I want to address the whole concept of the conservatism and the homosexual agenda as the two can not go together successfully. Will some one please answer for me what is conservative about accepting the homosexual agenda? What does homosexuality conserve? Gay marriage is not about conservatism but about the destruction by redefinition of the oldest institution known to man. How is that conservatism? Liberty, you might say. Yet liberty, as defined by the Founding Fathers, was not the freedom to do anything we wish but rather the freedom to do what is right. Liberty without moral guidance becomes licentiousness. Licentiousness in turns becomes slavery to our own desires. How is that liberty? A newer generation may be more accepting, but that does not make it right. If each generation determines what to conserve then nothing will ever be conserved.
Sorry, but actions have consequences (positive and negative) and behavior is a chosen action. Simple science actually. As noted above your strawman about animals does not apply to humans because humans have an ability to think and choose unlike any other creature found throughout God's creation.
When the conservative movement embraces the homosexual agenda, then the end has come to the Republic. If government can redefine the oldest societal institution, then how can it be called a limited government? What is our standard? What are our first principles? We are not libertarians who foolishly cry "liberty" as the answer to everything when what they actually mean is the personal freedom to be licentious. Licentiousness kills civilization and unless we guard against it, it will poison our own society beyond revival.
Yes, let's applaud handing over the conservative movement to the deviants.
You have no clue what you are talking about. Read GayPatriot. The shenanigans at these parades are not held in high esteem at all. Ditto for liberal gay activist groups.
Rory – you have clearly never been the victim of incest or a pedophile….to equate a relationship between two consenting adults with a relationship in which an adult molests and abuses a child is absurd and dangerous.
Watch out where,
the Huskies go,
and don't you eat,
that YELLOW snow!!!
Great post, Bruce.
And kudos to Andrew for bringing you into Big Journalism's fold.
…and very threatening to the Obamunists!
A friend of mine is a member of the Log Cabin Republicans and he joked that he was still in the closet…..not for being gay, but for being conservative.
From their website which is focused on achieving initiatives for gays and lesbians:
The so-called "gay agenda" is defined by the left through a narrow prism of legislative goals. While hate crimes and employment protections may be worthy goals, there are many other important priorities that receive little attention from the gay community. GOProud's agenda emphasizes conservative and libertarian principles that will improve the daily lives of all Americans, but especially gay and lesbian Americans.
Really? This is the stand you're going to take? No one argues Sorba's right to free speech, however, who do you think you are? The only people who should be rejected from CPAC are people who aren't conservative. What right do you have to reject anyone?
If you believe homosexuality is sexual deviance, that is your right, but it is not your right to judge. If you believe it is a sin, it is their sin, and none of your business. Where in the Bible does it give you, or anybody else the right to pass judgement on someone else? Nowhere! This is where mainstream Christianity goes astray EVERY SINGLE TIME! I am a Christian and I try to follow the word of God as best as I can. This includes NOT passing judgement on those I deem sinners, as I am a sinner myself. Jesus NEVER rejected anyone and God loves gay people the same. Why don't you try following his example and being the best Christian you can be instead of a self-righteous hypocrit. Haven't you read Revelations yet? "Christians" such as yourself are the first in line for judgement. You'd be wise to take that into consideration before you reject or pass judgement on other people.
Either every one has freedom or no one has freedom.
And I'm fro freedom!
Seriously.
The last time I attended a Gay Shame Parade was 4 years (1997 to be exact) before my official conversion to conservatism.
I know.
It's like a fiscal conservative supporting "cap and tax" which is just another form of socialism.
you go girl!
True.
There is a reason socialism spread in places like modern Europe where traditional family and personal responsibility have collapsed.
"Is safeguarding our free-market system worth sacrificing the integrity of our families? "
1. Without a free-market economy and the prosperity that it brings, we will have NO families…..we will have Big Brother and Big Sister raising our children in a welfare state. Wake up and smell the socialism….
2. The integrity of our families takes a FAR bigger hit from illegitimacy, adultery, and divorce among heterosexuals than from any nebulous gay threat. Address those issues first before spending all this time and energy worrying about same-sex marriage. Stable long-term relationships, codified by law and our churches, are the best way to preserve the integrity of families.
Well said!
I am of the opinion that if we all don't have freedom and liberty, than none of us have freedom and liberty – all we have is the facade of freedom, which will be promptly removed as soon as we cross some line too.
Freedom and liberty for every one.
Look I get the idea, fiscal conservatism with social liberalism is a winning combo. I do find it kind of weird that social conservatives are being kicked out of the "conservative" movement. This is why Huckabee said that CPAC was more libertarian than conservative. The social conservatives, i.e. Christians and other religious people, happen to believe that *gasp* the Bible does condem homosexuality as morally wrong. These same "conservatives" who talk about inalienable rights given by our Creator blatantly ignore the supposed Creator's own moral law. How can you accept the Creator's rights without accepting his law as well? If you ignore his law, you might as well ignore the rights you claim he gives.
Regardless of personal opinion, this an extremely dumb move by CPAC, they are shooting themselves in the foot. Whoop de do, the miniscule fraction of the American public which are fiscally conservative gays have been included in the movement. At the same time, CPAC has alienated the large block of social conservatives without which it is virtuallly impossible to win the Republican nomination (and let's not kid ourselves about third parties). No wonder Sarah Palin turned down the chance to speak at CPAC, and Paul won the straw poll. Yeah Glenn beck headlined, but even he is probably socially conservative due to his Mormon faith. Come November, the momentum of the conservative-libertarian movement led by people like Paul and Breitbart (and maybe Beck) will be blunted by the social conservatives flocking in droves to the Palin's and the Huckabee's. Likely they'll just split the conservative vote and we'll get more RINO's like McCain. Great job, CPAC.
Brian
@Baltimore Joe
You forget that after sparing the adulteress from being stoned Jesus forgave her and said "sin no more." He would say the same to homosexuals, adulterers, thieves, etc.
Jesus opposing the murder of sinners should not be viewed as Him condoning their sins.
I am someone exercising the right to free speech. Something you guys want to yell down.
A group who's sole existence is to be exclusive, bigoted, and cry foul when given their due respect, should not be a part, as a group, of CPAC.
The fact that Nancy Pelosi is now House Speaker shows how San Francisco's problems can become America's problems.
wow, conservatives vote loon ron paul and boo someone standing against inclusion of a group formed and based in their sexual deviance. what conservatism is this? cpac has lost it's soul.
Oh, I also see that you've put yourself in charge of defining conservativsm as well. Again, I have to ask, who do you think you are? The political spectrum is just that, a spectrum. People of varying degrees of conservativsm, liberalism, etc. As someone explained to me once, politicals, instead of being a line from the far left to far right, is really a circle, starting at the center and working it's way around to facism, communism and totalitarianism. The far left and far right both having the same result. Your claim that gays are wrong and should be excluded sounds no different to me than the far left and their intrusions on my freedom.
SO, why don't conservative homosexuals LOUDLY condemn Safe School Czar Kevin Jennings who is actively trying to normalize pedophilia in public schools?
I hope this silence has nothing to do with who he has sex with.
Can someone please tell me how the definition of marriage (a union between a man and woman) discriminates against men and/or women who have sex with persons of the same gender?
Tough. If you do not like my posts, and refuse to deal with the Truth, be an adult and don't read them.
That's your choice.
It will all work out in the end.
And the Bible is clear about where homosexuals are in reference to the Kingdom of God.
Enjoy.
I'm enjoying your spinning. Keep on.
All right, listen up!
You CANNOT trust the so-called gay conservative youth. They're no more than a fraction of an already low 3% regular gay population. To appease these radical groups — and the gay lifestyle IS radical even though some of you may becoming numb or accustomed to it. The link below tells you all you have to know about ANY gay group. If they don't get what they want WHEN they want it, they'll let you know to your face and you will NEVER be able to "take America back" to any sort of decency.
Don't be fooled by your compassion for them. Life is not fair. If you have no moral clarity, you help in bringing down this great country. Catholic Charities has already been forced to close down three adoption/foster homes because of the gay agenda.
Someone here posted about not being forced into a "theocracy" which is a crock. What is being forced on us is the gay totalitarianism of their way or NO WAY.
If you let this into the conservative tent this foolishness of "GOProud," you are asking for the death knell of CPAC. It's their intent. DO NOT BE FOOLED!
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10022210...
Again, do you realize how much you sound like a lefty loon? You spew intolerance by cliaming that gays are bad, wrong and should be exiled from anything you deem conservative. Then when GeoGirl calls you on your BS, you cry "intolerant" and call her "progressive." Just substitue the word progressive for racist and I would not be able to pick you out from the average poster on HuffPo.
Your fundamental misunderstanding of what conservatism is is at the heart of this problem. To many, and obviously those at CPAC, conservatism is the conservative application of government. That is, a limited government grounded in freedom and liberty. For all. No matter their personal or biological predilections. For such bigotry to be booed down so swiftly was a sign that not only has the conservative movement truly become conservative again (rather than being the neo-con movement, of which you are so obviously a part). Why does someone's sexual preference hurt you? How? It doesn't. They aren't forcing you to take part. You could agree with these people on every matter, political, economical, and socially, but you would hate them because they are gay? That is bigotry, and those attitudes are precisely why so many Americans have become disillusioned with Republicans and neo-cons like them. People are sick of the crap, and that's why we have the Tea Party movement and why CPAC went the way it did.
"It would be an easier world to live in if EVERYONE kept their sex lives private. I am so tired of hearing about other people's sex lives."
Exactly! But gays have no interest in keeping people/government "out of their bedrooms." They want to be in your kids' classrooms at earlier and earlier years so they can all learn the wonders of gay sex. Don't be fooled, people. If you fall for their woe-is-me self-flagellation out of a sense of compassion, then you're playing right into their hands. You need to PRAY for their conversion, not aid them in the moral destruction of our country and quite frankly, their eternal souls.
Try not to sound like an unhinged, f-bomb dropping homophobic lunatic.
@GeoGirl
Churches would LOVE to focus only on rebuilding traditional marriages. However, it's silly to engage in this effort while ignoring those homosexual activists who want to completely destroy the marriage.
According to your worldview, a conservative hawk should only focus on external Muslim terrorist threats and ignore obvious domestic terrorists on Army bases.
Republicans like Sorba is why the GOP will never dominate in California again.
1. Conservative homosexuals HAVE loudly condemned Mr. Underage Fisting…..use google to research it if you don't read GayPatriot or another gay conservative blogger or columnist.
2. And you still haven't addressed what I said about equating consensual adult sex with the abuse of a helpless child.
"Let people do what they want in their own bedroom and have their own lifestyle…" It's a straw man. Gays are getting all these things. SCOTUS already determined that years ago striking Texas anti-sodomy laws. C'mon folks. No laws prohibit and no one is trying to tell gays they can't do what they want in their bedroom or live the lifestyle they want. But that's only a decoy. They have to destroy marriage by watering down what marriage means. They want to legally codify acceptance of a gay lifestyle. Through marriage, education, whatever. Anything that symbolizes anyone's rejection of the lifestyle requires a law changing it–schools, marriage, commerce (a la e-harmony.com lawsuit). That's not conservatism and it is most definitely not libertarianism. Marriage doesn't mean much if it embraces infidelity and same-gender spouses, just as conservativism doesn't mean much if conservativism embraces big government, spending, social liberalism, socialism or any other number of antithetical ideologies. It's destroyed by re-definition. Gays aren't after liberty and equality. What the gay movement does is more akin to efforts to solve some sort of collective identity/inferiority complex.
And as far as threats of violence and such. I think there are idiots on both sides as always. Some real idiotic anti-gay comments show up on this post. Those are a discredit. After prop 8, though, who was it that was doing violence, vandalizing churches, making threats, black-listing supporters of prop 8 and posting their names and addresses on the web inciting people to harm everyday people who were working within the appropriate democratic system?
If there are gays out there as concerned as I am about the insane deficit, the burdensome taxation, the decreasing power of the citizenry and the increasing size of government, then I want them on our side.
Too late! lol
I'm amazed that you can tell the real "Christian fascists" from the trolls posting as Christian fascists.
Well you what, intolerance is a good thing then, I guess.
Thanks for sharing your 'interpretation" of conservatism.
I'll stick with mine, thank you very much.
"So, the REAL solution to this is to get rid of ALL marriage licensing. Get rid of the IRS recognition of a marriage and its different treatment from single people or people in other familial relationships. "
Now that I can agree with, I am tired of the progressives taxing married people more than single people living together. And with the ending of the Bush tax cuts, once more married people will be paying higher taxes.
Perhaps you should re-evaluate what you read. NARTH's "research" has been consistently debunked by responsible researchers during peer-review. NARTH has an agenda which is completely irrelevant to the politics of limited government.
I feel a need to weigh in on this issue, even if my views seem counter to the prevailing ideology here.
I am not "anti" homosexual. I do not agree with that lifestyle, anymore than I agree with a lifestyle that includes predatory heterosexuality, alcoholic or drug abuse, or any of the myriad diversions human engage in that keep them from reaching their highest potential as children of God.
As a career military officer, I was actually in favor of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the Clinton years. Every human being has a right to whatever crutch he or she needs in their private (and 'private' is the operative word here) lives to put up with the world in general, as long as they do not bring down their friends and family with them.
But Hesed is right. Whenever you turn your private battles into a public virtue to garner sympathy /support /whatever, you have crossed the line and are now effectively arguing that a vice is actually a virtue of some sort. This is NOT a position any true lover of liberty can admire.
Homosexuality destroys individual liberties just as effectively as drugs, alcohol, pornography, gambling or any other vice. Because we have ALL "sinned" and fallen short of the mark, it is our duty to be tolerant and loving of ALL our brothers and sisters. Homosexuals *certainly* have a place in any Conservative political gathering, and should be honored and accepted, just as anyone who has any other bad habit he or she struggles with in private or in public. But when you claim you are "proud" to suffer an affliction of the body, mind or soul and proclaim it to be just an "alternative lifestyle," you have joined the ranks of the disillusioned 'progressives' who would rather wallow in their afflictions at taxpayer expense, and to pretend that vice is virtue, or that evil is good.
If that is the way you wish to come to the party, as a spokesman for some affliction that plagues mankind, then you are not welcome, imho. If you want to come as a fellow sufferer willing to take upon the burden of others that your own may be lightened as well, than I welcome you with open arms.
By embracing the GOProuders, CPAC has embraced a simply bowed to political expediency, and has undermined their own movement in the long term.
What a brilliant retort. Name-calling. Boooring. When you have no argument, fall back on the name-calling. No one's preventing gays from doing what they want in their homes.
There's no hate, lagwolf, only the determined protection of our children from what we have the right to teach them. If you want to teach your kid gay sex is fine and dandy, that's your prerogative. But DO NOT force that on our kids and families. And since lefty unions and teachers' associations are with them on this, it DOES get to our kids. There's a separation of church and state but no separation of lefty ideology and state and YOU KNOW IT because they are one and the same!
YOU, therefore, are the fascist. YOUR "argument," therefore, is hypocritical.
What a brilliant retort. Name-calling. Boooring. When you have no argument, fall back on the name-calling. No one's preventing gays from doing what they want in their homes.
There's no hate, lagwolf, only the determined protection of our children from what we have the right to teach them. If you want to teach your kid gay sex is fine and dandy, that's your prerogative. But DO NOT force that on our kids and families. And since lefty unions and teachers' associations are with them on this, it DOES get to our kids. There's a separation of church and state but no separation of lefty ideology and state and YOU KNOW IT because they are one and the same!
YOU, therefore, are the fascist. YOUR "argument," therefore, is hypocritical.
Global warming battle should be right up there as it is economically based not science based. Follow the money on that issue and you can easily see the driving force behind it is economics, which just happens to where the USA is currently experiencing major issues.
Now that is the first time I have ever heard a swamp being called a lawn.
First, why do you change the opposition to a group being part of the movement into opposition to the individual being part of the movement?
Second, why do you continue to say that religious people should NOT be a part of the conservative movement?
Third, do you see the oxymoron in your argument/positions?
The question remains, is GOProud a homosexual group with conservative tendencies or a conservative group with homosexual tendencies? From their website, they appear to be the former, wanting to use conservative principles to make issues "better for all, especially gays and lesbians".
Your neighbor was perhaps talking about Afghanistan (not Africa), like the Pashtun tribe, where men and women are so deeply segregated socially (and it is also quite expensive to pay a dowry and marry) that a tradition has arisen where homosexual sex is a way of life for men until they marry. They don't self-identify as 'gay', perhaps because their homosexuality is situational rather than 'who they are'. I wouldn't doubt that there are other regions in the world where situational homosexuality is common….we see it here in prison populations all the time.
The heterosexual spread of HIV in Africa is due to straight men having premarital and adulterous sex (especially with prostitutes) sans condoms and then passing HIV to their wives. The practice of warfare via rape of women and children has also contributed to the spread of HIV. There are a variety of cultural reasons why condom use is not popular….unfortunately for the innocent women and children who fall victim to AIDS.
Not sure what racial tolerance fallacy you are talking about, as this comment thread only has to do AIDS…
If you were a conservative then you would not be projecting and using the term "hate". That is a typical progressive response.
BTW, yes I have had the crap beat out of me because of what I am! Still doesn't make me give up my values and principles.
I love that quote – don't get to use it often! Glad you found it funny, too! If we don't laugh at all this…well, I don't want to go there!
Those gay activists do not want to be in the classroom so they can teach children the wonder of gay sex, they want to be in the classroom to protect the kids who they believe are already gay. They want to protect those kids from being hurt.
Their intent may be misdirected but it is not evil.
Meanwhile, i will pray for your conversion into something close to human.
Projection is a tool of the progressives.
Hesed,
MrSegraves asks a good question:
"Why does someone's sexual preference hurt you? How?"
I'd really like to hear your answer.
We agree then. There should be no laws preventing them, and there should be no Governmental endorsement of their union either. Government should drop the marriage business as they have picked up child-rearing directly. Any number of people in any gender configuration can enter into whatever legal contract they choose.
Dear conservatives. I too have struggled with this issue. On one hand, I know many fine people who are homosexual. Homosexuality doesn't make a person less than human. What is at issue is the "homosexuality" itself. I get that some people feel it is against what is morally correct and I understand the reasoning.
But I ask you? Is it really any of anyone's business? When the day comes and we go to the great place beyond, will the Big Guy want to know anyone's opinion about homosexuality if you happen not to be a homosexual?
I personally am against the sexualization of our kids and to a great extent "homosexuality" is used as a tool of promoting that agenda. Honestly, I think that is irrefutable. Homosexuality is being used as a tool. Of that I have no doubt. But at the end of the day, all the parts that don't effect our kids is really none of anyone's business, IMVHO.
still find it unbelievable that the Justice Department dropped the charges against the SEIU thugs and the Black Panther thugs….great to know that our rights to protest and vote are protected (but only if we're liberals)…..
[...] his piece on the HomoCon Tipping Point, Bruce writes . . . formerly-conservative gay blogger Andrew Sullivan – never one to miss a chance to hammer [...]
You don't need to be 'married' to have those things. And where do you get off judging Lindsey or Anne? If people can 'find' themselves and come out of the closet later in life and be celebrated, why not Anne and Lindsey for doing the same? Just because they discovered an orientation that you don't agree with doesn't justify the hateful remarks.
Actually there is an interesting discussion in the Bible about leading people astray. The one who does this is not loving and would have been better if they were never born. In the overall scheme of things, one sin is no different than any other, with the exception of grieving the Holy Spirit.
Agreed. We don't need gays to win elections. Kudos to Ryan Sorba for standing up for normalcy. The godless "conservatives" who stand up for gays should repent.
Who cares?????
Except for my conservative bretheren, I gave on Cali a long time ago.
Some Afghani tribal men have sex with boys and each other, without looking at it as "sex". How they can rationalize that, I have no clue.
That old strain carried the Christian believe best summed up by the saying: Come as you are, but don't stay that way!
IOW, everyone is welcome however we do expect one to grow. Whether in their faith or as a conservative, the principle applies.
Or try to force it down the throats of everyone else by trying to pass more laws.
"A conservative certainly can find homosexual behavior disgusting but a conservative would NEVER think of trying to limit the freedom of someone because of exercising those freedoms."
A conservative would also expect the consequences (positive and negative) for ones actions to also not be limited because someone exercised their freedom.
I think most Americans are willing to live and let live. The problem is that now many gays are demanding special privileges, gay marriage, special hate crimes and on and on. They want to force society to accept their disgusting, deviant life-style as normal.
Worst of all, with the assistance of progressives in public education, they are pushing into our public schools to promote their deviance to our children.
Perversion Being Taught in Public Schools!
http://usataxpayer.org/?0039156365
HR4530 The Progressive's Plan for Your Children
http://usataxpayer.org/?0092081630
Well said. BTW, do civil unions get "marriage taxed" as do unions made in a church? Just curious.
Really? No, you really don't want an answer, you want to just to attack the poster for daring to speak the truth.
Enjoy.
You are correct. Gay Leftists ARE demanding special privileges. That is why GayPatriot.org and GOProud were born. To counteract that move and let folks know that we all do not agree with the "homosexual agenda" as it were.
This isn't a gay agenda issue… it is a socialist/statist issue.
Before ascribing the Gay Left's attitude to gay conservatives, read the GOProud legislative agenda.
AMEN, brother! You'd think the Marriage Tax would just make folks rather "live in sin" than give that extra pound of flesh to the Feds.
You don't have a Constitutional right to vote, PERIOD! Citizens have a responsibility to vote for their federal representative (people's representative). Citizens vote for their federal senator (was state's representative), by Constitutional Amendment (previously the state legislators chose the federal senator). Citizens vote for an elector (people's representative) to the electoral college. The electoral college chooses the President. States have to abide by Constitutional requirements during federal elections however the states also determine how to meet those requirements for all the federal positions.
Yes. I really want an answer.
My understanding is that it was a heart change and you could do all the good works in the world to no avail.
I'm not super religious but even I know someone can do the right thing for the wrong reason.
Perhaps those on the Left do, but in general I'd say "no". I could care less what you think about homosexuality, what you want to teach your kids about it, etc. School choice would take care of most problems IMO. Your approval, acceptance or however you wish to term it is irrelevant to me. This isn't about you or folks who share your views but instead about how gays are treated under the law. I never asked for hate crimes laws, I'm willing to see the Matthew Shepard Act repealed as long as ALL hate crimes laws are at the same time. Social con insistence in only making this about gays is what I've objected to. If you believe hate crimes laws are unconstitutional, great! Repeal them all then. I haven't a clue what "special privileges" you think gays want. Finally, as for gay marriage, yes I do want legal marital unions and make no apology for that. Civil unions for everyone under civil law and "marriage" as your religious institution decides, without any legal standing whatsoever for the latter.
"They want to push their disgusting, deviant life-style in our face and for us to accept it as normal. "
That's my gripe with the gay crowd as well. Personally I don't give a **** how gross they want to be in their own home. But I certainly don't want to have to hear about everywhere. They might as well face that most people aren't ever going to accept them as normal and live with it. (Besides, what's the big deal? Normal is way overrated anyway!)
You know, well put and I *gasp* agree.
That's exactly what has happened in Canada. If you say anything publicly against the gay lifestyle, you can be charged with a hate crime. This is a big problem for churches that are trying to guide their flock, according to their church's beliefs. I think the legalizing of gay marriage follows the "foot-in-the-door" principle. Once there, it is very difficult to stop the progressives from trying to wield more power through morphing the issue into more laws (I say again… See Canadian law). That said, I do not condemn homosexuals. That does not mean I have to condone the lifestyle. They are people too and deserve respect that any other person does… unless they decide to "force the celebration of their lifestyle" on me in spite of my religious beliefs. Well said, Fred2.
Funny that the gay marriage thing is very unpopular here in California though isn't it?
Personally I don't care for this Sorba guy either (mainly due to how he presented himself) but booing him out certainly wasn't mature nor did it endear me to the CPAC crowd.
Cool. Hold your breath. It'll be right along.
I am not sure how I feel about homosexuality. I AM sure that government should take a hands off approach on the matter. If two men want to make house, its nobodies business but their own. I respect people with fundamentalist Christian views, but being conservative and being a devout Christian are not synonymous.
Personally, I think conservativism has been around since the daysof Jesus Christ. It just took William F. Buckley to put a name to it, and Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan to put faces on it.
Sorba is definitely an ass but in politics never say "never" because you do not know what the future will bring.
I think you have alot to learn from your children.
52% is hardly "very unpopular". Wait a few more years till Prop 8 is repealed as the demographics change and then try that tune.
Yes, and if the founders had not relied on their religious values/principles then we would not have the Constitution nor would that document restrict the federal government. Which means the federal government can use religious values/principles as part of their legislation.
Better argument would be to abolish government intervention in well established religious traditions like marriage.
Homosexuals are like cat lovers. I don't get it, but I wouldn't shun them either.
If you don't believe in objective truth then yes, you can pretty much do whatever you like without any consequences.
But there is a morality attached to sexual behavior. Christianity holds that there is a moral rule being broken by homosexual behavior. The same kind of moral rule that is broken when a person commits adultery or fornication (there is a difference) or lies, etc.
By self destructive I mean it will ultimately kill you, eternally.
Your relativistic approach to sex makes me wonder how you can insist that relations be safe, consensual and between adults? Sounds like you are forcing your morality on others…..
With their vicious hatred of homosexuals are the biggest obstacle to attracting youngsters to conservatism. You have a right to your opinion, but you don't have veto power over who is allowed in the tent. A will take a gay conservative over a Christian liberal like Huckabee anyday.
Have you ever been to Mardi Gras and seen the straight people doing the same thing? Get off your high horse. Most gays live quiet, respectable lives and do not fornicate in the street. Just as most conservatives are decent people, and not haters like Ryan Sorba. Unfortunately it's the bad apples that get all the attention.
Lol!
Wow. Did I miss something. Is there not an entire board of conservatives here doing just that. Denouncing Sorba. Didn't he get boo'ed right of the stage by conservatives? I think so. This is why the left only amounts to about 21% of the population at large, because you refuse to acknowledge that you may be wrong. Did you even watch the video ro read the article?
As far as the Republican Party, who can't in anyway be considered completely conservative, being the Obstructionist Party of NO, that's BS. Republican solutions weren't even considered by the Party of "It's Our Way or the Highway Party of NO Never Means NO No Matter How Loudly the Majority Yells It and Too Bad if They Don't LIke it, We're Gonna Force it Down Thier Throats Anyway." Thanks God for the Republican Party. You fellas need a new tune, that one's getting old. Republican solutions not given the time of day by the Dems have been posted on GOP.gov for months.
You want to go after adulterers and throw them out of the party? A lot of Republican (and Dem) officials in DC will be packing up and heading home.
I don't have a problem with how people choose to use their plumbing either… unless they try to force it on me and my children through public school or laws.
The issue is this: Today's young people are very tolerant and accepting of gays. They will not tolerate a party that excludes them. Bigots like you (with all due respect) will not last forever; the old must give way to the new or die. The GOP cannot survive if it alienates today's young people, most of whom are pro-gay rights, pro-gay marriage and anti-intolerance. No youth, no future. Period.
"Homosexuality destroys individual liberties just as effectively as drugs, alcohol, pornography, gambling or any other vice."
Oy vey.
Guys, let's just face the facts. If you continue this dialog referring to gays as "disgusting," as "sinners," as "deviants" and worse, your party is doomed. This is not because you risk alienating gays. You've already achieved this, and only the tiniest number of gays would participate at CPAC. No, the risk is alienating the socially liberal, pro-gay marriage, pro-gay rights youth who constitute a huge voting block, and who in not too many years will actually constitute a majority. You cannot win in the long term if they fear and hate you, and there is a lot of language here that many young people would find appalling and unacceptable. They have gay friends. They actually like gay people. They may even have soe gay role models. The GOP cannot survive without winning over this generation, and if this thread is any indication, you are well on your way to slamming the door in their face. Now, this may give you temporary pleasure and a sense of righteousness. But if you want your movement to grow and thrive, it is not the wisest strategy. Repeat: Today's youth are tolerant, accepting of alternative lifestyles, and turned off by what they see as prejudice. They may not yet be pro-marriage, but they lean that way, and the Dems know this. To those who support discrimination and not welcoming gay people, go right ahead on your current path. It is a windfall, a true godsend to Obama and the Democrats.
I won't have to since I likely won't be in California anymore. The state is going down fast not only fiscally, but culturally and morally as well. Really, it's not a place to raise kids. Oddly enough, though I am relatively new to this country, I'm finding perhaps parts of Europe still offer a better environment for families. America (at least in California) is rapidly becoming a hostile environment for that sort of thing.
Also note one other interesting tidbit. When the vote was over, who was it causing riots and acting in general like spoiled deranged children?
Exactly. Murder is murder, no matter what the motivation is. There are already laws that cover various degrees of murder (voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, 1st degree, 2nd degree, etc.). They are all forms of hate crime. That is why there are already laws against it.
If someone eggs your house because they do not like you, it could be called vandalism. If someone eggs your house because you happen to be gay, shame on them, but it is still vandalism. Not a hate crime. Point is, if someone eggs your house, no matter what you are, it was motivated by hate of some form.
If someone beats you up, whether you are gay or not, it is assault and battery and motivated by some degree of dislike for you (also existing varying degrees). Not a hate crime.
True. But In Jesus' day, they probably did not have public schools like ours (lol).
Hesed's first comment underscores the deep divide in American conservatism we see today in our lives, on Twitter, pretty much anywhere one can see a decent-sized number of conservatives, where one is likely to get a truly wide (and therefore representative) sampling of opinion. Some booed Sorba – the majority, even – but many were silent and a few cheered. Before this grand and glorious new age of conservative tolerance toward the LGBT community can come to pass, American conservatism is going to have to come to grips with the tenacious foot-soldiers of an older – and far less tolerant – ideology which was long the dominant one for American conservatism. That ideology may be taking some heat today from a generation which is simply younger and more accepting of gays and lesbians through experience in their own lives with understanding there's nothing intrinsically wrong with them…but that old order – and it's adherents, both young AND old – hasn't simply disappeared because of the presence of a new strain of thought.
The anal hole is an outtie… I guarantee you that there is some harm turning it into an innie.
Well said Sir.
Listen, because this is real simple. Man is not required to follow the Creator's Law, moral or otherwise. God does not require you to follow his word. He lays out his laws and the consequences for not obeying them in the Bible, then He gives you free will to obey or not at your own peril. If God does this, who is Big Government to legislate? If a man decides not to follow God's law, that's his choice and no government or another man has the right to take that away from him. Period. Moreover, God does not give one man the right to pass judgement on another man's sin. The End.
I take it back, it wasn't censored. For some reason, the total comments reduced to 15 or something after I posted, but it appears to be back to the true total.
Well, apparently unless you have a 'gay' group afilliated with your organization, you must be anti-gay.
And really, where's the problem with being anti-sharing your sexual preference anyway?
As anyone admits, I hate to be last in queue for these discussions, especially in my own case when I have so many marvelous things to contribute. But I always say the second toughest lesson for any American to learn, and the one I endured myself in recent times, is the realization of human imperfection in every organization known to us all, whether it be the Republican Party, the Democrat Party, the Catholic Church, any protestant church, MSNBC, FOX, any third party, the Tea Party, the left-wing fringe media, etc: generally the entire human race is corrupt and the Bible supports this notion. And while I consider my own membership in the Conservative Revolution a genuine honor, still I believe in consistency above all, and provided this particular segment of nominal conservatives persists in attacking the GOProud organization I suppose it would only prove consistent to remove each and every adulterer (mental and physical), fornicator and masturbator from the bedeviled ranks of the GOP and Tea Party movements. Homosexuality is technically a sin; I know because I refer to the Bible almost daily. The same Bible also says a lot of other things: I recall the God of Israel had actually forbid His people to engage in usury except to foreigners; here in the 21st century the same practice has managed to become the entire foundation of America's economy; the God of Israel also forbid adultery. Thus I can applaud the good folks at this year's CPAC for rejecting this Sorba character. In recent memory I also defended Ms. Carrie Prejean–as always I do and whenever and wherever I could–and agree wholeheartedly that marriage indeed is an agreement and oath between a man and woman to remain sexually exclusive in mind and behavior until death. In similar fashion the conservative ideals of our namesake are nothing short of a business agreement betwixt the People and Government for America's livelihood and ultimate survival. As a conservative American, and thus a businessman of sorts, would I not be foolish to discriminate against a client for his sodomy, etc? I say it all as one believing in Christ and every word in God's book. But again, the problem here is folks neglecting to actually read the Bible or Constitution prior to quoting either one. The latter applies to rather all Americans–no less to those in GOProud who sought a place of acceptance with those who share the same conservative ideals to all our benefit. Given the audience response I can venture they found it.
I suppose if we were animals that would be ok.
Hell, animals routinely eat each other and higher intelligence animals even wage war on each other, so it must be ok.
Just stay away from clowns, they taste funny.
Would you choose to sleep with a man? probably not….but I did see a study a while back that was quite interesting….Those who are secure in their sexuality were completely comfortable around gay people and were not aroused by gay porn….Those in the study who were absolutley against gays, or were the most uncomfortable….95% were aroused when shown gay porn….which category do fall in…..Let Me Guess!
Have you ever heard of "The Fall"? It is pretty early in the Good Book. You should give it a read!
Good Job Hesed, the Mayor of Moscow called sodomy Satanic. These atheist conservatives should follow the lead of "Christian" Russia. The sodomite crowd by definition belongs in the libertarian movement, less government, no moral restrictions. What does the conservative movement gain by being sympathetic and caring for what generations have rightly defined as evil behavior?
I believe the majority stay low key because of the stigma or outright hostility that surfaces. I know gay people who would certainly vote for a conservative party that did not channel religious prejudice. And by no means is it just Christians who have that view. These gays are professional, careful with their money and as varied in their personalities as heterosexuals. Why wouldn't they be?
@ Agnus Dei-
On the 1st page of Comments I mentioned the fact that the Bible speaks more against hertosexual sex outside of marriage than it does gay sex. Both are sinful lifestyles.
However that is a MORAL question, not a LEGAL one.
Didnt Jesus say "Give unto Cesar what is Ceasr's, and to the Lord what is the Lord's."?
The government should have no say on questions of morality. The law comes into affect once one person's choices damage the rights of another person. Leave it to God to judge violations of Gold's law and man to judge man's.
Well, I thought my logic was pretty simple too, but of course issues seem pretty simple if you don't consider them from more than one perspective. Actually, I couldn't agree with you more. Gay people are free to call themselves married all they want, while I (and God) have the freedom to disagree. Similarly, God gives me the free will to pass judgement on another man's sin, and I can obey or not at my own peril. Personally, I leave that to God (although if that man claims to be a believer, I Corinthians 5:12 commands me to judge him). Moreover, who is Big Government to legislate a different definition of marriage than the one that has been commonly accepted for thousands of years in all cultures, that of a union between one man and one woman? I have no problem with gays having civil unions and rights despite their ungodly lifestyles, but who are they to force me to accept their twisted definition of marriage through government? Especially one which my God abhors? No, I have the freedom and the right to defend the definition of marriage from attacks by government, gays, or whoever. It appears your argument was not completely thought out and that it is not "The End"!
I think the great thing that happened at CPAC was this.
Conservatives sent a signal that they (we) are not going to tolerate "hate speech" of any kind.
I am sure that most of the people in the audience did not believe in gay marriage, or that homosexuality is genetic, or that sex education should include homosexual acts, or that gays should be able to adopt, or whatever. That did not matter, they simply decided to treat people who were already there with common courtesy and respect.
If this is the new Conservatism, then this nation is in for great things.
You don't have to agree or approve of everything, but if you share the same goals, which in this case is nothing less than saving this Nation, then you can get along.
Ladybug if you are a Christian you are amazingly ignorant. John the Baptist called sinners to repent or die. Read 1 Corinthians 5 again. These (like you) were reprimanded severely for not judging. It is time you quote scripture rather than cliches. Shame on you for bearing a false witness. You have trampled the 9th commandment and owe Hesed an apology.
It's funny, but in only a few dozen nations are homosexuals given the same freedoms as we have in the US.
Really, they should be thankful, not demanding.
But hey, even Dear Leader ignored them after they helped elect him and his cronies.
After his call to end DADT, he's counting on their support, and their smoke and cover, for his failed presidency, prior to the election season.
@bjwilson-
"who are they to force me to accept their twisted definition of marriage through government?"
The answer to that is simple:
take away the governments abily to define marriage and give it to churches.
The State can then issue civil unios to those who wish to have a legal contract, and Churches can set their own rules for who gets married in their sect of faith.
PS-
ladybugsTX- U and I have made sone of the same points.
Looks like AR and TX can get along (@ least outside of football season)
Allow me please. The libertarian movement is where those practicing deviant sexual behavior belong, minimal government, minimal morals, limitless freedoms including sexual practices. Mr Seagraves is willing to bear a false witness accusing someone making a principled decision on well established time honored principals as being hateful. He is looking to win an argument, not seek truth. I submit to you that Mr. Segraves is the hateful one and over taken in darkness. Shame on him.
Ya know, everything has to be about gays.
I don't hate gays, but I think they are wrong. And I strongly DON'T CONSENT to sexual deviance being considered or taught as an acceptable choice to my kids in public school, since I can't afford to send them to private school or home school them.
I don't much care what gays do with themselves in private, but thank you, no, for paying their driving issue even a shred of attention in public.
They may share my conservative views on politics, the military and economics. They may even share my views on a lot of social issues. But the other can't be reconciled by any other way than their choice to treat themselves as "ordinary" poeple and NOT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT "GLBT" ISSUES.
And they can't do that, can they?
Ergo sum. We can't find the common ground you think is out there.
And it's not an "intolerance" issue or bigotry or anything else. It's simply this: gays can't seem to get over being gay and making everyone else know they're gay. I don't need to know, and my kids sure as HELL don't.
So "free speech" means you get to say whatever you want, but no one may express disagreement with you, especially if they do so vociferously? I'm not sure I like your version of the Bill of Rights….
As to your second point, I wholly agree. It makes one wonder why Sorba and his ilk were included at CPAC.
I hope the old guard republican conservatives know that a main tactic of the gay LGBT community is to quietly infiltrate an organization and then take it over and foster their self serving agendas. I have seen this happen in co-op boards; condo associations, community politics. Check out Provincetown, Ma. on Olde Cape Cod. The town has gone to hell in a handbasket. Once a quaint seaside community of fishermen,artists and writers. No longer. LGBT have infiltrated and taken over control of the town government; the police department and most social outreach groups in the town. Group orgy's of upwards of 20 men having sex with one another on the beach in broad daylight, right in front of family's with minor children. (This has since been addressed by federal officers of the National Park Service,with mass arrests.) Give them an inch, they will take a mile. Beware !
Yeh – I've heard several funny stories about swingin old folks going crazy in retirement communities.
We may oppose the gay agenda, but at the very least we can do so without excess venom.
Exactly. It's that annoying 25% of the gay population making the other three quarters look bad.
It's no fairer to condemn all gays for that than it is to condemn all conservatives for anything particularly stupid said by Pat Buchanan or the Birchers.
I'll give you my answer. I'm a Christian and I want my children to be raised to carry on my values, my family heritage and bring up good Christian grandkids.
I don't hate gays and I don't teach my family to hate gays (although I can't say I feel the same way about Commies.) I don't want to have to – and I shouldn't have to – compete with an in-your-face advertisement of gay lifestyle when I go to educate my children as to what is right and wrong. As long as I am raising my kids to be decent, law-abiding people, it's no one's business that my views as a Christian – and what is acceptable or not – is anyone else's business.
Bottom line: I don't trust them to get the hell out of my space. They don't act that way. Comprende?
There is nothing political about being sexually deviant either. I don't want special laws for gays any more than most people, but a lot of gay people are actually otherwise "normal" decent people. I would toss them if I was opposed in principle to ideas they put forth. I don't have a clue as to the substance of what they put forth there, so I can't comment on that, but they are welcome to try and sell it. Wait to hear before you judge!
Gotta tell ya, the idea of my kids being indoctrinated in that way makes me wish I was back in the Nav sitting in front of a Tomahawk missile console…
Forget shot in the head. I prefer "Level their house."
There is nothing 'conservative' in believing that you have certain knowledge of right and wrong, and that it is your place to judge the preferences — sexual or otherwise — of people you do not know. No mammal has a right to outlaw perfectly harmless behavior that others may enjoy, because they feel they are entitled to determine the "natural rights" of all humanity. To frown on it — irrationally and childishly, in my humble opinion — they may do, but free people will never allow themselves to have their "natural rights" dictated to them by those who claim to know the mind of God. There is nothing 'conservative' about such an absurd and grandiose claim as that.
If the organizers of CPAC wanted GOPROUD there, then fine. The right to freely associate among PRIVATE groups/organizations? You don't like this, go somewhere else or form your own association and exclude them! Personally I think "sexual identity" politics is silly, and serves only to highlight the obsession of some with their own, or others private proclivities.
Everyone! Please STFU! about your sexual preferences and just live! Anyone who gives a crap, or wants to legislate against PRIVATE, CONSENSUAL behavior between ADULTS is dangerous! And, yes, keep this crap away from schoolchildren. Let parents be responsible for their kids. No STATE approved ideology on this or other matters of conscience!
Bugger off!
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, I don't need to do further study.
If they come under the banner of "I'm special and if you don't accept that I'm special you're a bigot" out with 'em, without any consideration.
There is nothing conservative in seeking to water down the laws/legislation so that you may continue your immoral lifestyle.
If you come to the table under the same banner 'gay rights' as other groups, you should receive the same treatment by CPAC.
But alas, CPAC is falling apart, as they're rotting at the core.
[...] Alexander McCobin of Students for Liberty, speaking at a panel discussion of student leaders, praised CPAC and GOProud. [...]
What is it that he says? I can't wait for you to tell me what the poster above has said. This should be good.
No, they are not interested in protecting the kids. You've bought the homosexual agenda hook, line, and sinker. If they believe that kids are gay, why do those kids need to be protected any more than skinny kids, or geeky kids, or punk kids? Why is it that gay kids need more protection than other groups of kids who get beat up? What does this "protection" consist of, anyways, but none-so-subtle indoctrination?
You can call people subhuman — which reveals your own bigotry — but the reality is that "protection" ALWAYS accompanies the mainstreaming of homosexuality, which ALWAYS includes endorsement and description of it.
You live in a big city don't you? I would say that gay leftist are messing with your meetings. They are not true conservatives if they are doing this and should be sent packing!
Agreed. Abortion and gay marriage should be left to the states.
And again, gays are involved with conservative issues and conservative groups.
But gay groups, pushing that big government imposed rights for a group that exists solely because of their self admission into that group, and for no scientific/physiological/inalienable reason, should not be a part of a larger conservative group, like CPAC.
Who cares whether you think homosexuality is ok or not? That's exactly the point: you have your views, I have mine and the government stays the hell neutral.
Wow, you really cheesed a lot of people off. Probably the right ones (not "right" politically, necessarily).
I don't owe him/her anything. I am so sick and tired of so-called "Christians" using religion to promote the exclusion of others. Whether you believe that homosexuality is chosen or genetic, it doesn't really matter. God and Jesus love all of us equally. I just cannot imagine Jesus turning his back on a teenage boy/girl confused about his sexual identity, regardless of the reason and I certainly don't think he appointed any of you to do it on his behalf. Shame on you!!
I believe that acting on homosexual desires is a sin, just like premarital sex and adultery are sins. I believe in traditional marriage, and I will vote in legal elections based on that belief. However, that does not give me the right to hate and condemn these people who are struggling just like I am. Our temptations may be different, but we are all children of our Heavenly Father, and none of us are perfect. We all struggle. Some of the kindest people I've ever known were gay, and I welcome gay conservatives with open arms.
Remember, guys: Actions are sins, not people. People deserve our love and respect, even if we disagree on political and moral definitions.
Feel the hate here from the Christian fascists. Its impressive that people who proclaim to love "liberty" and "freedom" wouldn't know either if it bit them on the ass. Liberty does not just apply to repressed social conservatives but to every American. You either believe in freedom or you don't people like Sorba and some commenters here are hypocrites.
Why should conservatives support the gay activist agenda? I am confused as to why this is desirable.
Patrick,
Thank you!
Thank you sir.
This is why Jesus told the adulteress who was nearly stoned to "sin no more" after saving her and forgiving her sins. He would say the same to a homosexual he spared from certain death.
On that note, check out this commentary "Answering the Gay Christian Position":
http://www.equip.org/articles/answering-the-gay-c...
So when did you "choose" to become a heterosexual? You must remember if you consider sexual orientation a choice.
Can we Boo "Hesed" off of Breitbart?
So,explain this to me. I want to privatize social security, I'm pro -gun, pro-death penalty, pro military defense and a small government. I believe that the government should say out of personal affairs. Plus I read Ayn Rand, a lot. But because I sleep with women, I'm not conservative? Please oh, wise wimperwimper. Tell me were I belong! Because I'm not sure the DNC would dig my gun collection.
Beautifully said!
People are people, strait, gay whatever. Jesus taught us not to judge, so don't. The more folks that jump on the anti-Obama train the better. Hate is never a good thing, it can eat you alive.
Nobody can make you feel bad about yourself without your permission. But they sure can beat the crap out of you without your permission. Don't tell me that I ever asked to be gay-bashed.
It really is possible that there are gays out there who care about low taxes, limited government, and strong foreign policy.
Agreed. It is hypocritical for Conservatives to demand that our govt take a stronger stance against our enemy, Islamic Totalitarianism, while wanting to institute Christian-based laws in our own country.
Islamic Totalitarianism is only different from Christian-based political agendas, like anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage, in a matter of degrees. They are similar at their root in that they both demonstrate a desire by members of a religion to want to legislate morality — giving their particular brand of morality the force of law against citizens who do not share their beliefs. Do I believe there are universal rights that should be enforced by law? Yes, they are Life, Liberty, and Property, and with those properly protected by the (or a) Constitution, I can pursue my own happiness and so can everyone else, so long as they do not infringe upon my 3 Rights and I do not infringe upon theirs.
For those who complain that if morality isn't legislated then my immorality will be forced on them, I say that I am totally and utterly against any public funding of, well, nearly anything except the military, police and judiciary, and that definitely includes anything like abortion or even public education (brainwashing), which should be the purview of the individual and determined by his or her own ethics and morality. But I don't believe that someone else's moral outrage gives him/her the right to force their morals on the rest of society. The govt should make no laws whatsoever regarding marriage. Marriage is a religious institution and its existence should not need sanctioning by the govt, but rather only the religious institution that recognizes it.
i was speaking on judgement. I am a Baptist so I believe in Salvation. You have to be born again to receive the Kingdom of Heaven. On the day of Judgement both the just and the unjust will be judged according to their works, the things they did here on the earth.
This doctrine is the reason why so many people reject Salvation and ultimately Jesus as the Savior. It's by grace, Jesus dying upon the cross for the sins of the world is why we are able to obtain eternal life.
If you want to get technical about it:)
It's not "The End".
You know, I've kept my mouth shut through this whole discussion, but I have to say that your continuing argument, and others like you, is both an error and a straw man too. But since you continue to try tell others the mind of God of the Bible, you might try reading it…
"God does not give one man the right to pass judgment on another man's sin", "Judge not lest ye be judged…" – however you want to phrase it, is only HALF of what God had to say on the subject.
There is another half to that lesson. And that your problem. You really haven't studied the subject. You've missed the part about those willing to be subject to God's judgment and receive atonement. They become "spiritual" beings. And the end result of that can be found in 1 Cor. 2:15 "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."
So yes, as a matter of fact – God DOES give one man the right to pass judgment on another man's sin.
When they booed John Zigler (director) and when Palin didn't go my radar went on alert. Have to agree, somethings going on in shadows….
You certainly can ask if something is moral or healthy but the government has no authority to deny people access to a legal status based on morality. As for unhealthy… well it could be said a man and woman can do anything 2 men can do and then some… making heterosexual sex more unhealthy than homosexual sex. The progressives are trying to legislate healthy behavior with the "healthcare reform" bills… are you saying you support their unconstitutional efforts?
I served, and served with gays and lesbians. Gays have served and continue to serve, known, and with distinction in every branch of the service NOW.
[...] said, this post by Bruce Carroll makes a strong point about the whole Ryan Sorba incident last weekend. He goes as far as saying [...]
First off Mike, there is not one single legal definition of "marriage" that describes it as a union between a man and a woman. This would be a violation of the principle of equal protection under the law and blind justice. Second, you are right that marriage has nothing to do with sex. Third, marriage has everything to do with legal status and property rights etc… Fourth, legally allowing some people but not all people access to a legal status is the very definition of discrimination.
I was in the men's room and Harry Reed was in the stall next to me. Strangely enought he started up a conversation by asking me if this was my first CPAC. Even stranger, Larry Craig was in the stall on the other side of me. The two of them obviously knew each other quite well and Larry bragged to Harry about the strong turnout amoung young, college age men. When Sen. Reed asked me if I knew what a Harry & Larry sandwich was, I felt uneasy and finished up my business and left.
Duhhhh, perhaps because this sin has been brought into the open and political environment by it's proponents therefore it should be discussed. I would respond the same of CPAC accepted sponsorship from Westboro Baptist Church.
God doesn't exist.
Actually you are wrong. The government can not use religious values in forming legislation. The first amendment says that they will not create laws that endorse one religion over another. There is no place for religion in a government of people of all religions. If they did use religion in the legislative process then some religion(s) that does not hold the same beliefs will become descriminated against. This is why they wrote the first amendment… to PREVENT religious descrimination… which is exactly what a judeo/christian definition of the legal status called "married" does. It descriminates against people who have a religion that allowes same gender marriage.
I do agree that the government NEVER should have stepped into the issue by buiding it's tax code around a religious tradition.
The Road to Serfdom was dedicated "To the socialists of both parties"…Hesed is simply one of the socialists of the Right. His brand of "Conservatism" is to use political will and force to project his own worldview and belief system on the rest of the world. He would no doubt love to see a large, powerful government if that government was enabling and enforcing his belief system. (The activist gay groups are most often similarly a part of the socialist Left, trying to impose their worldview and belief system…I'm not letting them off)
Well guess what, Hesed…the crisis the country has found itself in has awakened the true political conservatives, conservatism that stems from a belief in limited government and individual liberty. This conservative, straight white male is happy to welcome my conservative, gay brothers and sisters into the sunlight. Banish the hater's and socialists of the Right to the shadows. Thank you, all you gay conservatives who held strong to your political and fiscal conservative values through this period of social conservatism…it must have been difficult. Hopefully, that time is over and you can come out of the closet as Conservatives.
"It's your choice as with whom you sexually gratify yourself. That's a fact."
Much like it's your choice to be an idiot. I guess you made that choice clear.
"Oh, I also see that you've put yourself in charge of defining conservatism as well."
Great post! People who are so sure that they speak for everyone are usually the ones most out of touch with reality.
Exhibit A: our new Safe School czar Kevin Jennings, who supports pedophilia.
My question is this: "If homosexuals detest child rape, why don't they loudly denounce pedophile supporters like Jennings?"
I don't disagree, but you need to be careful about the, "That's what animals do in nature" argument. Animals in nature force themselves on each other, they procreate within their immediate families, and they have sex outside of their species. It's like arguing that GW is real because it's a hot day, or not real because it's a cold one. It's just an irrelevant side issue.
Most people are born straight, some are born gay, and a larger number are born somewhere in between. The last group does "choose" who to be with, while the first two have no choice. There may be environmental factors, it may be genetic, or it could be some accident of nature. I don't know, but I think it's dangerous to equate it with the behavior of animals as a justification of it being "normal". It's normal (or not) because of how you are born as an individual. No other explanation necessary.
Who is "we". Who is it you think you speak for?
how do you know it isnt your cup of tea? have you ever tried it?
Does that work for morons as well?
Good. Please leave the movement. The air will smell much better when you're gone.
There has been so much stridency within both sides of the movement (pro-gay rights and anti-gay) that it will take years for the wounds to heal. Many Conservatives believe (with good reason) that much of the gay rights agenda is cover for wanting to damage Christianity and traditional moral values. Gay marriage being pushed so hard could very well be as much to get a legal foot in the door of forcing Churches to accept homosexuality as it is getting equal rights for gays. I think it will take years (maybe decades) to fully incorporate people with Conservative philosophies (who happen to be gay) into Conservatism. That will not fully happen while gay rights groups continue to attack anyone who disagrees with cries of "bigot".
That kind of stridency causes a natural pushback which hurts both sides.
Why is anyone discussing their private sexual affairs in the public square in the first place? Aren't we all swimming in a cesspool of oversexed violence as it is? Why can't people leave their sexual inclinations where they belong: in private?
I don't care what you do in your bedroom, any more than you should care what I do in mine.
You're operating under a wrong conclusion. Natural law is not a principle that if it happens in nature it's good. Male stratification occurs *naturally* yet as a structure, we find not a "right of man" originating from it, but a system of privilege which denies the idea of equal endowment of rights.
Mother's abandoning or even eating their young occurs in nature. I'm not one for Natural Law, but even I grasp that it's operable form is not that if it happens in nature, that's the way it should be.
The preservation of marriage–and institution of centuries–is much more vital to *CONSERVATISM* than a never-neverland purist view of individual liberty–such that in the orderly process of community it cannot venerate existing forms of institution over academic equivalencies. And force and equal approval over something that the community does not vote to approve–especially to service the contemporary whims–when never in the history of homosexuals have they ever sought to _marry_ , and just 50-60 years ago this subculture called itself gay" (i.e. carefree) in contrast to the "breeders", those people they now seek to force approval from.
Such preference for purist theory over pragmatic and time-tested institutions is precisely the rot that the libertin-arians have spread in the name of "real" conservatism.
Well, I'll give you that clue… again… gays are pushing for gay marriage, they want to change the law to include same sex marriage, that is NOT a benefit to society and is a special privilege that will allow the practice of deviant behavior that IS a detriment to society.
As for hate crimes, surprise, we agree, get rid of them all. My "religious institution?" You have no idea what that is but I'll give you another clue… I believe ALL Americans should respect God as defined in our founding document, The Declaration of Independence. Note the word "respect", that does not necessarily mean believe or follow.
continued…
School choice WOULD solve a lot of problems but unfortunately we don't have that. The government takes our money and uses it to fill our children's heads with a bunch of clap-trap so they will accept it when they become voters. There is no God, praise homosexuals, be politically correct, global warming, embrace illegals, bigger government is the answer to everything. They don't have time for the three RRRs any more, they are too busy turning out idiots that can't speak, write or form a cognizant thought. The government is their god.
No offense intended.
Well said, Flame. I have no problem accepting each person as a fellow conservative. My problem is, why must they show up as a 'group'? Groups often have agendas they hold more dear to them than the party they aspire to be included in. Pretty soon after inclusion, they become a recognized voting block. So now conservatives have to start running everything by them and giving them concessions to get their support. Do you like the Black Caucus in our congress? How many times has the democratic party steered further left to gain their votes? I have a feeling the GOPride group wouldn't be too fond of the Souther Baptists and Mormons forming their own 'group' and demanding acceptance. Groups always turn into voting blocks, and conservatives would end up having to make side deals and compromises just like the democrats do. My apologies if this was too long.
I don't ascribe anything. When the speaker injected GoPride (what is it, GoPride or GOProud) he brought the agenda with it and that is what he intended. If you leave the gay stuff home, then we are in agreement. it is a socialist/statist issue.
"Sexual orientation, in and of itself, it absolutely irrelevant to any political discourse."
Hmmm…I wonder how the GOProud folks feel about the D.O.E. promoting gay fisting classes for Junior High Sex Ed. curriculums, or Federally Funded GLBT "curiosity dances," where High School age children are invited to "dances," off of school property and are "mentored" by adult gays…
Do the GOProuders believe that a Christian or Moslem bookstore should be forced to employ an openly gay worker for the sales floor? How do they feel about "Hate Speech" legislation that grants special rights to gays?
A desire for equality? Sorry but apples will never have equality with oranges, no matter how hard you try to convince someone. Equal opportunity/treatment, no problem. Equality on the other hand is exactly what the Obamassiah is trying to provide for the USA, aka Marxism.
Marriage became a gov't issue to support primarily for the betterment of society. Having a father and mother is the best situation for raising a child. It was the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution that was used to support this issue.
Personally, I would rather see marriage licenses, in particular, go the way of the dinosaur. It is unConstitutional and should be given back to religious control and no gov't influence as to whether one is married, single, etc.
Hmmm…I wonder how the GOProud folks feel about the D.O.E. promoting gay fisting classes for Junior High Sex Ed. curriculums, or Federally Funded GLBT "curiosity dances," where High School age children are invited to "dances," off of school property and are "mentored" by adult gays…
Do the GOProuders believe that a Christian or Moslem bookstore should be forced to employ an openly gay worker for the sales floor? How do they feel about "Hate Speech" legislation that grants special rights to gays?
Seems like a conflict of interest here, and I wonder which side the Log Cabin crowd would come down on…
Personally, I think the gay agenda is infiltrating the GOP and trying to further legitimize their perversions. Just my opinion mind you.
What is a "gay conservative"? As a conservative, I refer to my 1964 CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY OF CURRENT ENGLISH for the meaning of "gay": full of or disposed to or indicating mirth, light-hearted, sportive; airy, offhand; *(sl.) cheeky, impertinent; (euphem.) dissolute, immoral, living by prostitution; showy, brilliant, bright-coloured, finely dressed (with).
I agree. Here's what I saw. They introduced Sorba. As Sorba walked to the mic, people who had a problem with previous dealings of Sorba had to let him know that they didn't like his viewpoint. Sorba resented the introduction of this type of liberal politics, and said so. We have no idea what he was going to say. They didn't shout down divisiveness, they *expressed* divisiveness as he walked to the podium.
It is this type of left-light (including libertin-arians, here) that is only going to cause more of this left-like behavior, which like the libs claims that the people who are just promoting the traditional causes of conservatism are the ones being "divisive" and the ones shouting people trying to drive wedges aren't. I attended a conservative forum that booed John McCain in 2008, although I wasn't pleased with the crowd's reaction, I never got the idea that the boos were to drown out McCain, but to register pointed disapproval for his dalliances into progressive-think. Still they waited for McCain to speak up for amnesty before expressing their disapproval.
I don't really know what would be considered "normal." I probably have some hang-ups others would consider abnormal but I don't go around preaching their virtues or trying to enact special laws to force others to accept them.
Even more importantly, I don't try to push deviant morals and life-styles on children which is exactly what the progressives are doing.
Obama's Gay Safe Schools Czar
http://usataxpayer.org/?0098557572
What is going on?
It is human nature to seek God. Liberals have allowed progressives* to push God out of their lives and that in turn has left an empty spot. Attempting to fill that emptiness is what leads people to follow what seem to be well meaning causes such as "Global Warming" or "Hope and Change."
When these causes are exposed as frauds, it leaves the liberals in despair and disarray as day after day they witness their progressive* heroes twist and turn as their lies become more and more bizarre. We have all been duped at one time or another and we need to improve our defences.
The answer is simple, continue your search for God, he has not abandoned you, he is waiting for you. Even more important, save your children. Don't let those impressionable young minds follow the progressive* frauds down that same path.
*progressive: I am elite and smart, you are stupid, therefore I will be your master
Obama Mocks Christian Faith
http://usataxpayer.org/?0033881580
Progressive's Assault on Children
http://usataxpayer.org/?0040951310
God bless America!
You're not a gay man if you're the one on top.
You're generally right, Bob. We should note the spelling mistake in the title of this article. It should be, "Why CPAC Was a Millstone Weekend for Gays." See Luke 17:1-2.
Because declaring the acts of a sub-culture which has never before in history sought marriage as equal to marriage is supposed to be "true conservatism". Accepting the academic equivalence of a subculture founded on attraction is supposed to be equivalent to the brand of act contained in a fundamental institution of relationship. This is how the libertin-arians have hijacked the word "conservatism", when all they mean by it is the same thing as liberty.
Even their icon, Jefferson, wanted to throw people in the stocks overnight for "lewd talk", and so their projected individual sovereignty is not born out from even the most liberal of the founders of the American tradition. So throwing down conventional and traditional structures for this academic–never perfected–absolute is "true conservatism" in the quasi-Randian libertarian world.
Is that what your Uncle Bill from Ohio used to tell you when he picked you up after school?
Sure there are. The Log Cabin Republicans represent this faction a lot better than a group that formed in 2009, that Liberty recognizes as actively working against them, and that boos someone like Sorba as they walk to the mic. Can we really reach the nadir of libspeak if we find the more traditional side "divisive"?
Sorry, but there is nothing about freedom in forcing society as it exists to accept your argument for equivalence based on the idea that they should never have had an idea that the two acts are not equivalent, "equal protection" Because if you make the argument that one group gets to have their way and another one doesn't you've just reassigned the balance of protection by fiat. As far as I've seen the issue is far past letting gay people live together (I even support civil union), the question is whether or not you can force a society to equally esteem something that they don't equally esteem by recourse to theory.
I'm sure the left thanks you for accepting their terms. What I saw was Sorba being judged–so how does that fit into it.
If you have children or nieces/nephews ask them what was/is being taught. I had some interesting discussions with my children (i'm 50) on many topics since I was a single dad. Somehow, the homosexual community bought into the idea that marriage automatically receives acceptance/respect instead of traditional marriage (1man/1woman) earned acceptance/respect by the application of the tradition.
The Log Cabin Republicans do not represent these things. This is why GOProud formed in the first place. Log Cabin Republicans pushes a leftwing agenda. Why would you side with them over a real conservative group?
I'm with ya, CL. They followed their convictions. Good for them. How those convictions were shaped is what concerns me. The world does change, indeed. But if the change is brought about through the ever-growing tug-o-war between parents shaping their children's convictions -vs- public school system doing so, God only knows how long conservatism will last.
If by the "Big Guy" you mean GOD Almighty than yes, he does care. We will all be judged according to our works. By works I mean ALL our works.
I come from a Catholic background where everything is works based. So as long as I'm doing good (nevermind my reason behind it) I'm OK. I never really bought into the idea.
Doesn't this kind of illustrate the wisdom of the generality of the Mount Vernon Statement? Isn't the question of limited government in our lives involved here? Isn't this the consistency of the principle of limited government that should be applied accross the board?
It's intersesting that this issue seems to be fading in importance sorta like some commentators point out that racism has been outgrown by the next generation; it's just not much of a priority issue. Be consistent. Live and let live. I don't consider this a statement one way or the other on the issue of gay rights; simply a statement that this is just another area that government should stay out of.
"I don't really know what would be considered "normal"……"
Well the way I see it, normal is actually pretty bad. Plus I'm pretty wonky anyway so I could never qualify for the "normal" title, whatever it is.
"…I don't try to push deviant morals and life-styles on children which is exactly what the progressives are doing. "
Absolutely correct! My feeling is they want to do that in order to somehow make their lifestyle morally right. (All the while rejecting anything moral.) Sort of a campaign to redefine morality I suppose. Pushing that on children is nothing short of indoctrination.
I just thought of something (hey I'm slow today)… CPAC… the same group that voted Ron Paul? Hmm…. You know, they may not exactly be representative of most conservatives….
Being the rare GOPrude (clever?) is bad enough. But the Democrats forfeited long ago any semblance of moral authority regarding this or any issue. I mean the same Democrats who demonize women for touching themselves…
The party has only begun. Not to mention Hispanics generally oppose blatant homosexuality, not to mention socialized medicine. But again, at least the kind folks at CPAC–conservatives–managed to defend GOProud in an age when Democrats fail to defend gays or anybody. The modern GOP's members are driven to coexist in spite of its diversity; the CPAC attendees nevertheless provided an overall generous applause for these folks. Yet another reason for Democrats to tremble in their panties.
Would you describe them as gay conservatives? I can hardly imagine 20 gay conservatives having sex on the beach in broad daylight. Not that I want to or anything…
so be it, but what does all of this have to do with gay marriage being a civil right? thats where all of this is headed. I feel this is not the anti-gay marriage right wing of the conservatives causing this problem its the pro-gay-marriage conservative right wing of the party starting all of this division, and those who have ALL OF A SUDDEN see this as a conservative issue. why because Cheney does too? come on….
so who is promoting INTOLERANCE AND DIVISION?????
I applaud Sorba because this new conservative gay orientation will ostracize those conservatives who have been pro-family and pro-conservative but not pro-gay marriage. now we are called bigots. wow , thats amazing. so now because i do not believe that gay marriage is a civil right, due to the end result of marriage, which was its sexual heterosexual act 7 the begetting & raising of children, I am a bigot. who would of thought this insanity would be promoted by "conservatives".
CPAC, the gays, the birchers, the truthers, all can go rot. conservatives dont need any of them. and the tea party sure as hell did not start become popular & effective because of any of these gay-bircher-truther groups.
if the conservatives now want to be the home of every nutty and surrealistic cause that doesnt get noticed or supported by the majority of the public, well again, conservatism doesnt need CPAC.
CPAC will die due to its support of NON-conservative social and civil issues. how the hell is being anti-gay marriage anti-homosexual??? first off, to be a conservative when did it become part of the party line to be "pro-homosexual"??? when did this occur???
I have been a friends of gay all my life, and even growing in the "old" days of the 70s & early 80s. I had parents both born during the depression, one served in WW3 & Korea, who had friends who were gay, but none of them, gay or straight, EVER said that gay marriage was acceptable or necessary to the dignity or civil rights of a homosexual. so now they were bigits for not ALSO BEING PRO-GAY MARRIAGE?!!!
this is the latest BS.
The right wing blogosphere thinks those who are anti-gay marriage are the enemy well have at it then. you are the ones causing the night of the long knives NOT pro-family pro-hetero-sexual marriage conservatives. WE ARE TOLERANT be we also TSNAD FOR SOMETHING. So now CPAC wishes to be a BIG TENT, as Jerry dufus Ford wanted. all this BS about Reagan has been smoke-screen. well the reason conservatives ATTRACTED VOTERS WAS THEY STOOD FOR PRINCIPLES THAT DIDNT CHANGE WITH THE LATEST FADS & PHONY SOCIAL EXPERIMENTS. So will conservatives NOW have to ACCEPT ABORTION? Dont those persons who wants abortions also have "civil rights to an abortion?" oh no, abortion is ok as long as its not "late term" abortion. and then 10 yrs on "late term" abortion is the new CPAC rallying cause to supposedly "pick up votes".
again, pathetic and sad. conservatism will NEVER become the majority by aligning itself with "the causes" of those voters who are NOT promoting conservative values, rights or issues.
cheers and enjoy the new CPAC. I can just see it now…next year we have pro-gay marriage speakers. FANTASTIC. You wil have lost whatever respect you "thought" you "had."
utterly pathetically fool-hardy. what an excuse for popularity. again, so who is promoting INTOLERANCE AND DIVISION?????
CharlieSays repeats, "Why does someone's sexual preference hurt you? How?"
The question is wrong. It should be, "How does someone's sexual deviance hurt other people?" Sodomy and other forms of sexual deviance are physically unhealthy, and a sexually faithful spouse of a sexually promiscuous person (whatever he does) is at greater risk of disease. Sodomy and pedophilia are linked, and the homosexual propaganda in the schools also corrupts the children. They grow up to think that homosexuality is just a legitimate sexual alternative, merely a "sexual preference." They grow up to become promiscuous, whether homosexual or heterosexual (and what meaningful distinction any longer then exists?). They destroy the notion of a family, with a husband and wife committed to each other for life (spare me from the homosexuals' "true love" nonsense), and the children who learn the same healthy pattern again. Society itself ends up being destroyed. However, I will admit that homosexuality is not first of all the CAUSE of sexual perversion but the RESULT of sexual perversion. (Obviously it is a MANIFESTATION of sexual perversion.) Homosexuality is its own punishment as well as being the punishment for other forms of sexual perversion (e.g. adultery). A society that accepts homosexuality is probably circling in the drain.
I love how the pro-gay'ers so quickly adopts the attitude that "I'm smarter…I'm more compassionate…I'm a more evolved human being…and anyone who doesn't agree with me is nothing but a hater/nazi/homophobe/taliban christian//idiot".
Makes you guys sound downright…..liberal.
But then again after 40 of cultural indoctrination by the left, some of it got to stick.
Now if fiscal conservatism and social liberalism is a winning combination, perhaps we should welcome potential groups like;
1. The American Union of Conservative Bigamy
2. Abortionist For A Balance Budget,
3. Fix Social Security Through Euthanasia USA
4. National Organization For Higher Standard of Living Through Eugenics
5. GOPederasty.
Thank you, Consrvativ_KDH, for responding. You have the courage Hesed apparently lacks.
Your view is very much like my Dad's. I respect my Dad's view, as I respect yours. On this issue we disagree .
I'm a 56 year old straight male but I've been an actor and done quite a bit of theater, so I've known a lot of homosexuals. Except for sexual orientation, they really are like straight folks. I don't mean this as some sappy, we're all the same inside nonsense. We are not all the same inside, straight or gay. Some of the gays I've known were whirling b*******, some were good guys. Some were effeminate, some were not. Some were in-your-face about being gay, most, in my experience, were not. I despised some, some were good friends.
Back when I was young, thin, and, dare I say, good looking, I was cruised on at cast parties all the time. Except for two incidents, each involving a drunken gay lout, whenever someone cruising me found out I was straight he'd get out of my space and move on.
Do you know how the wannabe cruisers would find out I was straight? I'd simply tell them.
Those guys in GOProud are some of the most boring, not in-your-face homosexuals I've ever seen.
Thanks for listening.
See my comment to Consrvativ_KDH below.
Oops should read – "…After 40 years of cultural indoctrination…"
If adultery, fornication or masturbation failed to end your Republic, why then would homosexuality? Not that I want to condone what God Himself forbid; merely I to want to act consistently towards folks in general. In any case the federal government is unqualified to pass judgment in matters of sexual orientation or anything at all. Instead the jurisdiction is God's alone and I can assure you, the entire human race is condemned for its own sins–and not because so-and-so is a gay Republican. Would you rather they voted for socialism? Or just not vote entirely?
Some of the commenters here don't seem to get it.
Once homosexuality is considered "normal" by both parties, there'll be no justification for preventing it from being taught in schools. Furthermore, there'll be pressure on Christian institutions to accept homosexuality, even though this'll be impossible.
How do I know this? Because this is exactly what's happening in Britain. When the people lose morality, anything goes. Guess what, I don't want my children being taught that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality.
First, you missed my point entirely. What exactly makes the acceptance of the homosexual agenda conservative? Second, do we then encourage and officially sanction adultery, fornication, etc. Just because mankind is sinful does not mean we accept sin. Third, no one is asking the federal government to pass judgment on sexual orientation. We simply ask that the oldest institution known to man be preserved. Fourth, government passes judgment on sexual conduct all the time – pediphiles, bigomy, rape, etc. Fifth, if they are willing to redefine marriage by governmental fiat to satisfy less than 1% of the population when the majority of the people oppose it, what makes you think they will not already vote for larger and more intrusive government.
Would you rather these people voted for socialism?
[...] » The HomoCon Tipping Point: Why CPAC Was a Milestone Weekend for …In the weeks leading up to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last week, there was a sidebar skirmish involving two of the CPAC sponsors. The new gay conservative group, GOProud.org, which was formed in 2009, … Read more [...]
Log Cabin Republicans: New Platform Title: Unleashing the Log Jam
No, they shouldn't have rejected the gay groups.
You may disapprove of homosexuality; that is your right. But when you demand that all of us who identify ourselves as conservatives shun people we know as friends, family members, and coworkers, you ask too much — it's unreasonable, and, frankly, it's not conservative at all.
The entire point of conservatism is to limit the power of government to order people's lives, and the key to achieving that goal is fiscal conservatism, because money = power.
There are many, many gay people who are fiscally-conservative, pro-gun, pro-strong national defense, and even pro-life — so for the GOP to maintain an anti-gay plank is not only not conservative, it's stupid.
Social issues like gay marriage and abortion should be left to the states. Let Utah be Utah, and New York be New York; let all the states decide for themselves on these issues, then we can all vote with our feet.
Anything to avoid threatening my fellow conservatives' cherished sins of adultery, fornication, masturbation and divorce! God approves of those, apparently. Just the other day our good friend Greg Gutfeld at Redeye managed to demonize the working class alongside a small number of BH readers. There also I protested it. Hence the only reason I fight alongside you people is for the defense and propagation of true conservative principles. Call it a business relationship entirely. As for number "2. Abortionist For A Balanced Budget", why did I think of Scott Brown just then?
This was at CPAC, huh? I'm glad I didn't go. In fact, I don't think I'm going from here on out. Huckabee was right — the libertarians took over, and the social conservatives and Christians got the shaft. That's fine, guys; I'll be out there in the tea party, as I suspect a lot of us Christian conservatives will be. You can go on with your liberal-lite club, and you can vote me down all you want, but here's a clue — the homosexuality supporters are strong in conservativism like the Paultards are. Let that sink in for a moment or two.
Go Liberty University. Would that there were 10,000 more universities like you.
Certainly. With one difference. If I'm given a time slot to speak, rest assured I will use that time. All of it.
No, keep it simple stupid. If you're there for conservative issues, fine.
If your there wearing the banner of exclusivity and bigotry against your fellow conservatives, if they dare disagree with that banner, you shouldn't be a part of the process, as you are there to divide, not participate.
Again, gays have always been part of the process.
You don't bring your sexual preference choices to the table when you interview for a job, or shortly after you are hired, and frankly no one cares. Keep it to yourself.
You said it well. The surreal part of the whole thing is when I invest a great deal of time in "acquiring Democrats' scalps" in the "outside world" (Youtube, Politico, MySpace) and then coming back to this dump and having to use the same weapons against my fellow conservative thinkers. Fortunately I agree with everything you posted but I speak in generalities. I verbally assault a dozen liberals or so, yet even stranger I catch myself being friendly and informative to liberals in the past several days, because really I wish to convert folks in general to conservative principles. Then I get to debating conservatives who also apparently need an education in what it means to be a conservative. What a bizarre circumstance! I pray you forgive this probably strange rant. But yes: fornication and adultery (and divorce) are all sins also.
Wouldn't you like to know?
Probably. Start quacking.
Maybe it would be more beneficial if you used toothpaste and deodorant.
I'm sure some are supportive of those things, some are not.
But the way things are now, when you accept those groups into your organization, you accept those things as tolerable, as well.
The individuals are great. The groups, and pushing the perverted desires such as you address, are not needed, wanted, and aren't there to help with the process.
As for my own use of the term "dump" in referring to the present discussion, I remembered a quote in Dumb and Dumber, so I used it. A word of it anyway.
I'm a Catholic, too and I seriously doubt that I'm going to get the question about homosexuality at the pearly gates. I KNOW I'll get the question about ALL the other stuff I did and so I am working on those.
Judge lest ye be judged.
Folks this is just an observation on some people having a difficult time merely letting homosexuals have a presence in the Conservative movement. Seriously, if we are all talking about fiscal conservatism–who cares where the person comes from or what they do?? I don't get this.
This is the same arguement we get from moderates and libs saying we need to be a big ten, sorry not buying.
Also, not sure I want to follow today's "youth" . They get there politcial discourse from the daily show and rock the vote with MTV. This is how we got Barrack Obama. No thanks.
I'm a teapartying gay conservative. Believe me, it was hard to align myself with the Repub party because of the anti-gay sentiment, but I had to chose a side and the Left is so wrong. I am conservative on issues of small government, strong national defense, low taxes and less spending. I am Libertarian on social issues. I think marriage is between a man and a woman, that the hetero's have claim to the term marriage for legal reasons and because it is different. But I do believe that gay couples should have the same rights as marriage in the form of a civil union. The media always shows the San Francisco gay community, they are not a representative sampling and mostly an embarrassment in my opinion. I commend CPAC for including GOProud. Born gay but not yesterday – don't be a liberal tool. I'm sure the bashing is soon to follow from both sides….. Oh, and I think Sarah Palin is fantastic, that should do it…….
Gay/Straight …WHO CARES i'm proud of them for realizing you can't just get behind a political party's projected agenda and expect them to take care of your issues. politicians are ALWAYS going to take care of themselves, their issues.
our country is falling into unsurmountable debt all around us and everyone is going to have to do the heavy lifting of correcting it.
your sexual orientation is not a political issue and one can't be for limited government on the one hand and for regulation of social issues on the other.
No we don't Lars.
That maybe your issue and you may identify your world around your sexuality but, not everyone does and not everyone has to.
I'm old. I'm hetrosexual. I'm very conservative from a long multi generational line of conservative hetrosexuals and I couldn't care less about your sexual orientation and I'm not interested in making it a political issue for or against I simply want the debt controlled, corrected and paid and the government limited.
Conservatives who are for limited government and fiscal responsiblity could care less about your private life and the Christain ones of them should know that if they have a problem with it they should pray about it not judge it.
The only gays I would be interested in addressing were the ones that as a gang knocked down the lil old granny with the courage of conviction to hold a sign stating her belief and that's because they were thugs not gays.
So Lars…don't judge less you be judged.
CPAC IS FINISHED! There is nothing conservative about being a militant take-it-over-at-all-costs gay.
"Are you SERIOUSLY trying to tell me humans are NOT ANIMALS?"
Do you really think it is a fundamental of *conservatism* that we are? Do you realize that much conservative thought is propagated on the idea that we are? It's positively Rand-ian to elbow your way into the traditional crowd and claim that you have down "true conservatism" and that everything needs to fundamentally change to support this new leveling concept of "true conservatism".
[...] a gay conservative group, was at CPAC this year. Could be the tipping point for gays and their odd relationship with, well, either political party. [...]
Profitability?
You don't have to accept their lifestyle and choices we aren't talking lifestyles here we are talking governance and saving our country from crushing debt.
I am white, old, southern conservative with fundamental Christain beliefs and I know that the division of Church and State is a good thing. Christains who believe homosexuality will bring down the moral fiber of the country don't have enough belief in hetrosexual sex I guess or in the Church or in God because if your faith is strong you have nothing to fear from homosexuals.
I guess since I'm not homosexual I don't understand why if you have the courage to deviate from the norm in your sexual orientation why it would be important to you to have the title marriage to your union but, that's just me but, I question the thought that being raised by homosexuals made you homosexual why didn't being raised by hetrosexuals make them hetrosexual.
Thank God there are huge differences within the Conservative party! This is a country of 300+ million citizens and untold aliens what do you expect?