CPAC Boycott by Social Cons Uncovers the Right’s ‘Gay Problem’
They support “limited government, individual liberty, free markets, a strong national defense and a confident foreign policy.” They believe that “every individual should be equal under the law.” They support policies “that promote the power of individuals, limit government’s reach, enable economic growth through free market principles, and strengthen America’s position in the world.”
I would guess that the overwhelming number of conservatives who read the above without knowing that these are the foundational beliefs of GOProud could be convinced to sign up. But since the conservative advocacy group, whose members happen to be gay, support gay marriage and repeal of the military’s ban on openly gay individuals, they are poison to many on the right. This animus has taken the form of a boycott by certain social conservative organizations at the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conferernce (CPAC), and even motivated some conservatives to call for expunging gays – and their supporters in seeking equal treatment — from the conservative movement.
Why? Clearly there is a religious element to opposing homosexuality. Christians of strong faith who take the strictures against loving someone from the same sex written in the Bible at face value at least have a logical, if not rational, basis for their opposition.
Then there are the traditionalists who see gay marriage as a threat to the institution of marriage. Unfortunately, they are about 40 years too late.” Heterosexuals have done a fine job of destroying the institution of marriage long before gay unions became an issue. Divorce, cohabitation, lax sexual mores, and out of wedlock births have combined to radically alter the concept of marriage, changing it from “death do us part” to “until I get sick and tired of you.” The nuclear family has been largely replaced by “blended” families where children from two, three, and more marriages are raised in homes where the old rules simply don’t apply.
And there are military groups and serving officers who oppose lifting DADT because they fear it will affect combat readiness and cause a mass exodus of the rank and file. Good and loyal officers have made this argument, but no one can say if they are correct, or if they are blowing the issue out of proportion.
Faith, tradition, practical necessity — all of these may be good reasons to oppose gay marriage and repeal of DADT. But why oppose GOProud? Their principles are conservative principles. Their stands on issues are firmly planted in the mainstream of conservative thought. Heterosexual conservatives overwhelmingly agree with them — except for issues regarding equal treatment of gays and straights.
I have not been granted the ability to peer into another’s soul and see what is in their heart. But human nature being what it is, it is a safe bet that not all this opposition is based solely on principle, that some of it is almost certainly the result of hostility and fear directed toward those who are different, or who discomfit us by upsetting our traditional notions of normality.
It can be extremely unnerving to discover that the grounded, safe, familiar, secure cocoon in which we exist is being invaded by what appears to be radical ideas and radical people that throw our notions of what is “normal” out the window. We try to shelter our children by drawing them into the cocoon, just as our parents, and their parents before them tried to keep the outside world from intruding on our peaceful existence. It never works. Sooner or later, we discover that America has other plans. A nation that prides itself on being a revolutionary society where there is the chance for change every four years does not sit still for long. For better or worse, America is constantly in motion, and like a steamroller, flattens the past and readies the ground ahead for whatever transformation is to occur.
Beyond the front gate, there are all sorts of people we wish would just go away and not disturb us with their problems. Fifty years ago, it was African Americans being asked to be “patient” while society continued its glacial pace of progress toward granting dignity and freedom from oppression. Then it was women who were told to go back to the kitchen and shut up. The disabled were asked to keep a low profile so as not to upset our delicate sensibilities. The homeless became invisible. The mentally ill, exorcised from our consciousnesses.
And now, the turn of the gays. Do we learn nothing from history? Are we condemned to constantly retreat into our cocoons and fight like hell to try and maintain an outmoded, antiquated notion of what is “normal?” You would think that knowledge is liberating and that having discovered that homosexuality is not a disease, that genetics more than environment determines your sexual orientation, we might cautiously reach out and try and understand the unnecessary burden carried by the gay community in that they have to constantly fight for what you and I take for granted; the simple, decent, American ideal of equal rights under the law.
There is nothing “unconservative” about this, despite what some on the right are saying about GOProud and CPAC. This is especially true as it relates to the fundamental truth about gays that many opponents of gay marriage refuse to concede; that people in love — even if they are of the same sex — should not be denied the legal and social advantages gained by being married.
There is no delegitimizing love be it between a man and a woman or two members of the same sex. The same electro-chemical reactions in the brain that cause sparks to fly between a man and a woman also affect same sex couples. The same stages of love experienced by heterosexual couples are also felt by gay partners. Love is love in any context and only man in his ignorance defines the emotion felt by gay couples as “illegitimate.”
Why that has been accepted by conservatives as a reason to oppose the idea that two members of the same sex who love each other should be legally kept apart is beyond me. You can disapprove of gays and gay marriage out of religious conviction or personal prejudice but it is decidedly unconservative to force the rest of us to agree with you by preventing the union of people who love each other and wish to nurture that love in a legal marriage.
Government has no business deciding such personal, intimate questions. Allowing gay marriage will no more “encourage” it than allowing straight marriage gives a special imprimatur to those unions. The argument that allowing gays to marry will destroy “traditional marriage” — whatever that is — doesn’t hold water for the reasons I gave above as well as the simple notion that each of us has the ability to define our own relationships in ways best suited to our material and emotional happiness. What else can the “pursuit of happiness” mean?
There is a secular conservative case to be made for gay marriage and GOProud’s very existence is a powerful piece of evidence for the plaintiff. I am pleased to see that conservatives like Andrew Brietbart and Ann Coulter, as well as many others I would normally not see eye to eye on all issues, are trying to give legitimacy to GOProud. Their efforts almost certainly won’t sway most of those who will be attending CPAC and especially those boycotting this year’s conference. But it is a promising first step toward a realization by most conservatives that whatever differences we have with the gay community shouldn’t stand in the way of embracing those who share our principles and agree with us on most issues confronting the nation today.
No they dont. Gay Conservatives should be welcome at CPAC, but not groups organized around suchh sexual behavior.
Get real.
That’s right. They should stay in the closet.
/sarcasm
Your statement alone confirms Mr. Moran’s statements. If you want to see more hatred, go wander to some of the commenters @ HotAir.
Nope. No bigotry at all in the Conservative camp…
I do not care if a person is gay
. HOWEVER< they should have no more rights than any other human being. The same rights…but not different rights.
They don't need to stay in "the closet".
It's like being "african American'…I don't care. You're an American, period…you have no more, no less rights and say in our country. you don't get a special bathroom…unless we can all use, and keep your hands to yourself..no matter you're orientation
Ill say it again, deviant sexual behavior.
It is what it is. Censoring speech in a PC fashion, isnt going to change it.
They dont have to stay in the closet, but groups organized around deviant sexual behavior have no place at CPAC.
EV, define “deviant sexual behavior”.
Deviant: the behavior of a small minority (in this case no more than 3-5% of the population) versus the behavior of the vast majority of the population. That’s only one (statistical) aspect of “deviant” behavior. There’re others, like for example moral, health, biological, traditional values related definitions as well, but you get the drift.
Perhaps using your left hand, when everyone else uses their right? Perhaps wearing socks during sex?
The issue shouldn’t be whether a sexual practice is “deviant”. What other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, given they’re all consenting adults, is none of my business, or yours. If you grant the government the right to define deviant sexual behavior, limit or prohibit it, then you have to imagine someone from the far militant left with that power, and think what they would do to you and the way you conduct yourself. Would you feel comfortable with some radical lesbian feminist defining “deviant sexual behavior”?
If the government isn’t involved in regulating it, then it shouldn’t be an issue to the Republican party, either. We don’t want the government regulating churches…so why should we be trying to prevent those churches which wish to allow gay marriage from doing so? You can never guarantee that the government will always be in the hands of those with whom you agree–and leaving the power to do these things in the hands of your opponents is dangerous.
“…but you get the drift.” No.
You mean like Joooozzzzz?
Or blow jobs w/whipped cream??
I’m with you EV
So what you are saying is that, people that are practicing S&M should not be allowed to get married?
I think most social conservatives come at this issue from a religious perspective. Well, I’m a Christian and I say let these folks in the room. I don’t believe one can be selective about choosing which “sins” are acceptable and which ones are not. Gays are sons and daughters of God too. Seems to me many of the people that object to including gays on religious grounds are casting the first stone. Jesus might call them hypocrites.
You’re absolutely right gordo. Tristan and Escape should take note. The Christians on the religious right need to distance themselves from those who would punish in the name of God (or Allah) and behave a little more like Christians toward members of the Gay community.
You have just saved me the time it would have taken to try to figure out how to write what you just did, and I would not have done as good a job as you. In G*D’s eyes, gossipers and liars are the same as homosexuals. Sin is sin is sin.
Im not casting stones.
I wouldnt welcome any group organized around any other sin either.
Though I would welcome sinners.
Christianity isnt about celebrating sin as a lifestyle choice, in a moral/cultural relativist framework.
Good Lord!
Are you referring to the Jesus of Scripture who told the woman caught in adultry to “go forth and sin no more”? Or, are you referring to some make-believe Jesus who is okay with sin and requires nothing of those who claim to follow him?
Homosexuals can become Christian but once they become Christians they stop being homosexuals. Just like someone who commmits adultry can become a Christian but must stop committing adultry.
Scripture reference: Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, and Romans 1:18-32. “…that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:21)
If you do not believe in Christianity, fine, but let us be clear on what it does say.
That is beside the point – it is a concern of politics, not your private faith…or are you one of those Christians who wish to turn the nation into a theocracy?
It is exactly to the point. The post I responded to referred to Jesus to make his point. I pointed out where the poster went wrong. No one said anyting about a theocracy. No social conservative of standing has ever called for a theocracy. Keep you demagogory to yourself.
I don’t believe one can be selective about choosing which “sins” are acceptable and which ones are not.
Sinners are more than welcome since the room would be empty otherwise, but maybe we ought to be careful about associating with those who boast about their sins.
And this includes the heterosexuals too.
I thank the Almighty God that we have freedom from religious rule here in America.
No one’s freedom should ever be subject to whether or not it is a “sin” in someones religion.
NEVER.
Otherwise, you are opening the door for Islamic totalitarianism, should they ever achieve a majority in this country. That is the hard truth as there are those posting here who are more rightly called “Religious Authoritarians” rather than conservatives.
Rather, it should be subject only to whether it comports with the notion of personal responsibility and accountability in adults and with limited government powers and individual rights.
A gay marriage ban isn’t in the miniature copy of the Constitution I carried on my person that I defended with my life for 26 years.
If you can show me where in the Constitution it explicitly bans homosexual marriage, I’ll change my mind. But, I suspect its emanating from the same penumbra that says abortion is a civil right.
Yes, Yes. We are all impressed with the Libertarian argument that morality equals Islamic fundamentalism. Thank you for equating Christianity with Islam.
Why don’t we repeal all those other moral laws against murder, theft, child abuse, sexual exploitation, etc?
“Yes, Yes. We are all impressed with the Libertarian argument that morality equals Islamic fundamentalism.”
—–
Yes, Yes. We are all impressed with the Neocon argument that morality equals Christian fundamentalism (and Christian fundamentalism is the ONLY morality). Democracy=freedom=liberty-to-be-who-one-is.
That is a pathetic argument. Obviously, you are incapable discerning that which does not affect others. You are either completely immature, or completely uneducated, but undoubtadly naive.
Sorry pal – we don’t want your Christian Taliban here
To Erisian: The Founding Father drew a distinction between liberty and licentiousness. Liberty is the freedom to to good. Licentiousness is the freedom to do whatever you want to do.
To Taylor520: Christian Taliban. Big words for a little man hiding behind an anonymous name. Considering my family, friends, and I are U.S. military who fought against the people you now compare us to, I think our conversation is over.
@Kipling, just exactly when was licentiousness brought up previously? Is your implication that the libertarian and/or Islamist Agenda (since it is these 2 anathema to the world you so rail against) is/are to promote mass orgies on the streets? It appears that in your holier-than-thou world libertarian=libertine=licentious.
Or maybe the whole problem is that libertarians understand that for every law you have on the books there are costs, and we just don’t see the fiscal advantage in prohibiting someone from being able to attain the same thing as someone else.
Most like what has put the anti-libertarian bee in your bonnet is that we walk the walk of a Christian lifestyle – even those non-Christian libertarians. A libertarian not only lives by the Golden Rule, we also make the effort to live by the Silver Rule: we do NOT do to others what we do NOT want done to us.
Yes, Yes. We are all impressed with the Libertarian argument that morality equals Islamic fundamentalism. Thank you for equating Christianity with Islam.
Actually, I don’t see the equivalence at all. I prefer Christianity, because it was Christian thinking that got us our Constitution. But, it was also Christian thinking that got us Prohibition, which was an extremely bad idea that resulted in the deaths of many policemen fighting the moral “crime” of drinking a beer. It also took a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol consumption nation wide. DO you care to address it?
Why don’t we repeal all those other moral laws against murder, theft, child abuse, sexual exploitation, etc?
Because each of those crimes involved a perpetrator and an unwilling victim or a victim who cannot make an informed, adult decision. IOW they cannot consent to it. duh.
You ignore the point and try to equate crimes which violate anothers Rights, which make laws banning the conduct perfectly reasonable and indeed, Constitutional, with the conduct of two consenting adults that violate no ones Constitutional rights, but only your religious dogma and your “feelings”. I distrust government by “feelings”. So should you.
@ Erisian
The licentiousness statement is in response to your closing comment: “Democracy=freedom=liberty-to-be-who-one-is.”
“Liberty to be who one is” is a wide open moral statement that has no distinction. Should a pedophile be allowed to be who he is? A murder?
Nor does democracy equal absolute freedom. The ability to vote upon a law or for a representative does not mean that one is free of law and order. It simply means that one has a say in determining the law and order. Or, if one is in the minority, has no say but at least a chance to speak.
Please feel free to borrow the Christian moral standard. I highly recommend it. But, you must realize, that it does not naturally flow from the Libertarian world view and you are essentially just borrowing. The Libertarian view of government and the Christian view of government are two different views. The role of morality differs between the Libertarian view and the Christian. But, all being said, I would much rather you borrow mine than be faithful to your own.
@ SGT TED
To claim that Christianity gave us Prohibition is demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of prohibition and the different factors involved. Yes, some Christians supported the effort. But, so did progressives, nativist forces, socialists, and conservative organizations. Prohibition was one of those movements that different groups supported for different reasons that had nothing to do with the other groups which also supported the movement. You cannot simply say that Christianity led to prohibition. It is an ahistorical statement.
You specifically stated that to base our laws on a religious standard of morality would open the door to Islamic totalitarianism. Therefore, you equate all religions or laws based upon a religious standard with Islam. Your words, not mine.
Our country is based upon the separation of church and state but it is not based upon the separtaion of the state from the Christian God. Jefferson appealed to that God in the Declaration when he squarely made the Creator – not a government and not society – the source of our natural rights.
Man does not do well when he allows society or government to become the ultimate standard of morality. Atheistic governments have murdered more people in the name of humanity and progress than any other form of government. Chrstianity is not based upon feeling but upon Scripture. Your gut reaction. Your inate thought based upon your own experience is far more subjective than the Christian worldview.
You refer to our constitutional rights but the constitution does not give us our rights or our obligations. If you think it does, then you need to read The Federalist Papers. The purpose of govenrment is to secure our rights not to give them to us.
It is one thing for consenting adults to participate in a homosexual relationship. It is another to demand that the government redefine the oldest institution know to man to suit their 3% of the population. If you are for limited government, please explain how any government can be limited that is allowed by judicial fiat to redefine the most basic societal institution.
Should a brother and sister who are consenting adults be allowed to marry?
I distrust government by those who seek to redefine society and societal institutions to suit their own bodily desires without regard to the impact on society. I distrust a government that becomes its own standard of morality. I distrust a government that would adopt the unproven theories of the gay agenda and jettison centuries of western civilization.
There’s a lot of things that aren’t in the Constitution, and the 10th Amendment specifically places those things under the purview of the states.
@Kipling:
Your denial that the Temperence Movement was a fundamentalist Christian inspired and led movement is astounding. Have a good one.
Would you like a reading list of authors used at the university level who will say exactly what I said in my post on prohibition?
Amazing:
1) Moran presents the left’s promotion of self-styled victim groups as “unstoppable progress” – to conservative reader who are motivated to political revolt by the excesses, social decay, government meddling and enforced groupthink of that “progress”.
2) Moran skates over the obvious distinction between real, baseless discrimination – and dysfunctional behavior. Are the mentally ill really better off now that they’ve been “liberated” to live on the streets?
All the statistics show that gay “communities” are defined by compulsive, promiscuous behavior and “open” relationships. Moran’s PC assertion that gays are “just like the rest of us, but attracted to the same sex” is not borne out by data from the Ministries of Health in Holland, Sweden, London, New York, and San Francisco.
You believe the lies of those lefty groups dressed up as Christian who’s job is to keep homosexuals corralled up in the liberal stockade? Any organization that needs twisty rhetoric and misinformation to promote their goals is not of G*D!
You got it, Ben. Moran is losing even his RINO orientation and heading nowhere but Left fast in this piece.
Thanks Ed – but it looks like even Pajamas Media is censoring comments, and cut the one you commented on…
Sorry, I don’t believe in the myopia of identity group politics.
Nor do I believe in mainstreaming and/or promoting homosexuality. But that’s not the primary concern here. There’s something about elevating sexual practices to being the primary concern is fundamentally wrong.
Should heterosexuals divide themselves into ‘We like women’ and ‘We like men’ voting caucuses? This pandering the homosexual agenda seems just as ridiculous and absurd to me.
Well Pajamas Media has been infected with the liberal garbage.
Guess I’ll have to start looking elsewhere for my news.
JUST CERTAIN PEOPLE…Not the whole place
Not to worry; you have just happened to come across the local jester. Adds spice to the broth, and only comes on stage infrequently. In general, he does no harm despite being rather tedious.
If the “priorities” are “Fiscal,” “Social,” and “Security” conservatism,
then all people – not just the straight ones – need to stick to those.
Or they can stick it.
There’s already the Democrat’s party around to welcome “Big Government Spending,” “Homosexual Agenda,” and “ANSWER/Code Pink” folks.
Why should it just be two people getting married? Why can’t 3, 4, 5, 6, or 20 people decide to form a matrimonial union? Who are we to project our arbitrary notions of a societal norm onto these consenting adults? The author cites the degeneracy of heterosexual marriage as evidence that it’s not as if we would be sullying some pure institution by expanding it to include same-sex unions. But I would suggest that — rather than being a coincidental tangent — this degeneracy of heterosexual marriage is an effect of the same cultural debasement that now champions gay marriage. It’s rather cynical, then, to seize upon evidence of the decayed state of marriage and argue that a bit more degeneracy is therefore no big deal.
There’s another point that gets deliberately obscured by this debate, and that is the notion that gays are somehow denied their civil rights by not being able to marry persons of the same sex. This is preposterous. Gays have the exact same legal right to get married as any other citizen. That the definition of marriage — a union between one man and one woman — offends them is beside the point. If we are to accept this argument, then we should be prepared to similarly redefine marriage for other arrangements as they present themselves. Why not allow incestuous marriage? Brothers and sisters (or better yet, brothers and brothers)? Before you dismiss this as boorish hyperbole, consider the recent charges brought against a liberal professor at, I believe, Columbia. He had been engaging in a sexual relationship with his adult daughter for years, and was charged under NY’s anti-incest law. There was an outpouring of support for them from liberal circles, arguing that incest laws violate the rights of consenting adults. The only difference between a hypothetical movement to legalize incestuous marriage and the present movement to legalize gay marriage is a decade or two of gestation in the mainstream media echo chamber.
1. The answer to “why not 4, 6, 8, etc. in a marriage?” is pretty obvious: partnership law. Marriage is about an equal partnership. A marriage with more than 2 people is inherently unequal. In a bigamous relationship, for instance, the man would be half the partnership and each wife would be one-fourth. That is inherently unequal.
2. No gays do not have the same right as anyone else to marry. Everyone else has the right to marry the person of their own choosing. Gays do not. To say that a homosexual has the same rights of marriage that everyone else does is like saying a man has the right to an abortion, or a woman has the right to a urinal.
3. Using the Bible to justify restrictions on gay marriage is ridiculous. We can’t even agree on what the Bible is — I have my ROMAN Catholic version, others have their King James versions, etc. — and whatever version we choose has been rewritten and retranslated countless times over through the centuries. (Note that the Catholic Church is ordering a new translation of its Bible.) The Bible differs according to religion. Nor have we considered the context in which the Biblical prohibition on homosexual conduct arose — that it was considered a form of pagan worship, and that Judeo-Christianity needed to populate the world.
4. To argue that if we allow homosexuality we must remove our laws based on the Ten Commandments is absurd and insulting. The laws based on the Ten Commandments are largely to avoid injury to others. Murder, theft, etc. hurts someone else. Homosexuality, not so much.
5. No one who opposes gay marriage specifically or homosexuality generally has been able to explain to me how it specifically hurts them. Not one. Gay marriage would not affect heterosexual marriages one iota (whatever an iota is). Homosexual conduct, while most of us find it gross, does not directly affect anyone but the homosexuals themselves. So if it makes homosexuals happy and it costs heterosexuals nothing, cost-benefit suggests we should do it.
6. While many people here understandably don’t like having homosexuality “pushed in their face,” the only way that issues such as gay marriage, equal rights for gays, and gays serving in the military can be considered as policy issues is by someone making them issues, which is what GOProud is doing. They can’t be faulted for that.
MissAnthropy @ #7: “It’s rather cynical, then [on Moran’s part], to seize upon evidence of the decayed state of marriage and argue that a bit more degeneracy is therefore no big deal”. AGREED!
Pro Cynic’s (PC) response @ #7: “5. No one who opposes gay marriage specifically or homosexuality generally has been able to explain to me how it specifically hurts them. Not one.” Listen up, Pro Cynic. Here’s the deal:
Open your mind, PC: it’s the CHILDREN we’re talking about—NOT YOU and the other coddled adult toddlers out there. All the skewing of the marriage bond, the one that actually, biologically produces children, has done inestimable damage to our kids, who are made more and more vulnerable, the further society moves away from protecting the union of their biological parents: traditional marriage.
As the definition of marriage has been expanded to increase the sexual license of adults, our kids are less and less secure, and more and more vulnerable and unhappy—and more prone to pathologies that will adversely affect all of us: yes, PC, including YOU!
It has been well documented (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, for one) that children fare much better when they live with their married, biological parents: children are far more likely to be abused when living with an adult to whom they are not related. As common law and homosexual unions are the locus of a far greater amount of both instability (and break ups) and abuse than one finds in traditional marriages, it doesn’t seem like a good idea to abandon our children to these non-traditional options. Why should our children’s welfare and best interests be subservient to the sexual appetites and cohabitation whims of the adults in their lives?
Another concern in homosexual unions is that any child living with the partners will, necessarily, be separated from one of his/her biological parents. Why would society promote and approve a situation that, by definition, removes a child from one biological parent (and often, even the identity of that parent), and thus, puts that child at risk? (Divorce, now thoroughly “normalized” in our secular society, and surrogate parenthood have, unfortunately, also placed too many children in the vulnerable position of living with either a single parent or unrelated adults, both serious risk factors.)
Of course, there are many biological families with pathologies. However, the overall picture is that most kids do best in their own, two-parent-married-to-each-other family, a “haven in a heartless world” (Christopher Lasch). So, yes, such families can be problematic, but why abandon our kids to facsimile families where the known risk factors, that often lead to instability and abuse, are actually built in?
So, the elephant in the room, re changes in the definition and devaluing of traditional marriage, is that adult sexual license and appetites are being given precedence, as well as social and state sanction, over the needs of our vulnerable children. As far as I’m concerned, there’s something seriously wrong with this picture.
Got that, PC?
“It’s for teh CHILDREN” is the battlecry of every nanny state, big government liberal.
Thanks for outing yourself.
If it’s “for the children” who do better with both biological parents then it is time that the Big Gubmint Nanny State outlaw divorce since “that any child living with the partners will, necessarily, be separated from one of his/her biological parents,” and “children are far more likely to be abused when living with an adult to whom they are not related,” (outlaw adoptions – don’t feed me that “normalized” junk). And while we’re discussing what is best “for the kids”, outlaw single parent families also – widows/widowers should be required to remarry within, say, 12 months – FOR THE GOOD OF THE KIDS.
Erisian, poppycock.
Who makes all the decisions that lead to kids not living with their own parents? It’s certainly not the kids and, in most cases, they don’t like it.
I was responding to PC, who wrote, “No one who opposes gay marriage specifically or homosexuality generally has been able to explain to me how it specifically hurts them. Not one.” So I gave my explanation: gay marriage is ANOTHER OF FAR TOO MANY EXAMPLES, where adult sexual license trumps the well-bring of our children, who, BTW, are not doing very well these days.
Perhaps you haven’t processed that many here have acknowledged that no-fault divorce; common-law treated as equal to marriage; no-shame, government paid-for, out of wedlock births and fatherless families; and surrogate parenthood have drastically lowered the bar re both expectations for adult responsibility and the kind of care our children deserve. (I’ve been opposed to all of these socially subversive measures.) Homosexual marriage just adds to the list of the self-centred, Me-Me-Me “adults first and the kids will just have to go along” mentality. It didn’t used to be this way. It shouldn’t be this way.
You’re the one who says, “[I]t is time that the Big Gubmint Nanny State outlaw divorce . . .” I didn’t say or even suggest that. In fact, the problem here is that government—via judge-made law and, in my country, tyrannical Human Rights (sic) Commissions, via their star-chamber, kangaroo courts—is virtually forcing the rest of us to march, lock-step in time with the “gay” agenda, or else the state will intervene to force us. What do you think of that? (And check out the fidelity, health, and abuse statistics for the homosexual community. Like many of the other situations I’ve mentioned, I don’t think we should be using our kids as guinea pigs in dubious social experiments. It’s about time that the adults, homosexuals included, stop gratuitously and promiscuously playing around with sex and get serious about the needs of their/our children.)
Vous comprenez?
My divorce argument was a satirical extension of the ever so popular “for the children” argument that has been used as a red herring for far too long.
We agree on one thing; parents today are raising a generation of low-expectation children who are waiting for their next handout. But, as to who makes all the decisions regarding children being raised by other than their biological parents? Those decisions are usually due to either divorce (the parents poor decision-making showing at least a second time), one or both parents tragically dying, or even Gubmint steps in on occasion and removes the children from an unhealthy home. All options not good for the children but reality none the less.
Personally, as I have said, I don’t give a rat’s patoot as to a person’s sexual orientation – it’s none of my (or anyone else’s) business. Social cons are creating a diversion from what I think most conservatives and libertarians would agree is the primary battle at the moment; controlling Big Gubmint. Once Obama is out of office, spending and the debt are brought under control and BG has been brought down to a manageable size, then you and I can get into a philosophical discussion on morality. We can at least start from some common ground, as your last line points out: overt licentiousness is practiced by both heteros and gays, and that it is getting out of hand (altho’ I think you and I might disagree on how to fix the problem).
Until then I think we should be focusing more directly on the big problem.
Wakarimasuka?
The right’s biggest problem is the number of self-professed conservatives who spend more time attacking conservatives and Republicans than leftists and Democrats (and their propaganda arm,the LSM).
Included in this group are Brooks, Frum, Parker and Moran. These people are the left’s useful idiots.
Right, like calling anybody who disagrees with their position on DADT or gay marriage “nasty bigots” — like GOProud leader Cannon did today in the big MetroWeekly story.
I have another question: GOProud supports repealing DOMA. So, they want to enable a situation where (1) any single judge in Massachusetts, or an legislature in Vermont, can legalize gay marriage in their state, and (2) then Georgia will be forced to recognize that marriage, against their own laws, due to the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution (note that the FFC grants to Congress the right to determine HOW it should apply (“And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof”). Which is exactly what DOMA does.
But GOProud wants to overturn DOMA, because, you know, “federalism” or something.
That’s federalism? Forcing Georgia to obey Vermont?
Frankly, I don’t believe GOProud is conservative AT ALL. They fly the flag, but…when the rubber meets the road its ALL about pushing the same gay-issues agenda as any other LGBT group. GOProud is a trojan horse (in the classical sense, thankyouverymuch).
So… forget all your moral scruples and live according Rick Moran. But if you forget your scruples regarding natural law, maybe you should forget you scruples about individual freedom too. Why not become a liberal?
I only visit PajamasMedia from time to time, and obviously Moran reminds me why.
Just because something is “immoral,” it doesn’t necessarily follow that it should be”illegal.”
They support “limited government,
So why do they want government involved in their relationships via marriage laws and family courts?
What these gay groups want –”conservative” or otherwise — is for society to call bad behavior, good; and when others oppose them they call them names.
Same thing can be said about the porn industry. I don’t hate these people but they aren’t doing anything right.
I don’t know. Why do conservatives what government involved in their relationships via marriage laws, voter referendums and family courts?
Seriously. Marriage is the business of those involved in it and not the government. Get the government out of the marriage defining/allowing/prohibiting business and all these problems will just disappear. But no, so-called “limited government conservatives” are all for limiting government until it comes down to allowing people to do things that they don’t like even though they don’t harm anyone by allowing those individuals their liberty.
The right likes to talk about itself as being more principled than the left, but they quickly abandon that whenever it comes to issues relating to sexuality.
Why do conservatives what government involved in their relationships via marriage laws, voter referendums and family courts?
With regard to points 1 and 3 it’s because a lot of them are the parents of daughters.
With regard to point 2 it’s because legislators seem more responsive to lobbyists and old media outlets than their constituents.
Seriously. Marriage is the business of those involved in it and not the government.
And what is this world that you live on exactly?
And who exactly do you think adjudicates divorces?
I have to agree with you on this point. Long, long ago when I first heard that the Republican party was in favor of outlawing abortion, I thought I had heard wrong. It’s normally the Left that wants to control the behavior of everyone in America (and elsewhere). Besides, if the poor don’t have lots and lots of unwanted babies, who will vote for Democrats, I wondered, so why would Democrats support abortion? Okay, I was wrong on that and finally learned the term “social conservatives.”
It was a while before I first heard that Republicans didn’t much like gays, either, often based on their interpretation of and belief in the Bible. Back then I knew no gays (they were safely closeted) and I didn’t think much about it. Now that I know many and find that I have a couple of them in my family–and none of these seem the least bit evil–I find myself again wondering why the Republican party seeks to delegitimize a rather large group of human beings.
Now I find that many, many Republicans are happy to welcome like-minded individuals into our party, rather than force them to the liberal Democrat party. I’m with those people, not the “I refuse to associate with Them” people or even the “love the sinner, hate the sin” people, who quite obviously do NOT love the “sinner” but certainly DO “hate the sin.”
I suppose the true believers would disown their own children if they “chose” to be gay, but I used to have a sort of “redneck” neighbor who had nothing but disdain for gays (and blacks); when his son “came out” (and his daughter married a black man), he declined to disown.
For Polly” Its amazing how you are able read the hearts and minds of the general public from your position in moral outer space.
The point you miss is that God has condemned those who practice homosexual conduct. Period, end of report.
I encourage you to delve into the scholarship on the relevant Biblical passages that seem to condemn homosexuality. The situation is a lot more fuzzy and unclear than you make it out to be.
Is it okay for atheists to be gay? No “sin” then, huh?
Response to Polly:
Just because someone does not believe in gravity, does not mean they can fly.
I believe there’s more scientific proof that gravity exists than there is that “God hates homosexuality,” especially that He hates it so much that man should make it illegal. IOW, bad analogy. And once again relying on religion–and nothing else–to legislate.
Scripture is pretty clear on how Christian God feels about homosexuality. The only way you can dismiss it is to engage in some logical gymnastics and contortions that would make a pretzel envious or to remove those passage from the Bible.
Scripture is central to Christianity. You cannot dismiss the Scripture and still legitimately claim to be a Christian. You can claim to be spiritual. You can claim to create a god in your own image. But you cannot claim to worship the God of Scripture and reject the Word through which He reveals Himself.
If you do not agree with Christianity, fine. But have the guts to say it and then create your own god.
See above.
Pay attention and stop being so self-centred.
“You can approve of gays and gay marriage out of progressive conviction or personal prejudice but it is decidedly unconservative to force the rest of us to agree with you by advocating the union of people who love each other and wish to nurture that love in a legal marriage.”
It swings both ways. You rail against those who want to keep marriage between a man and woman because you desire a different outcome. Those who oppose it have the same right. Just because America has changed doesn’t mean that all things must change. The concept of marriage between a man and woman is not tied to American thinking. I don’t see other counties advocating for gay marriage. So why must America be forced to accept it.
I also think your Strawman argument that there is opposition just based on wanting to keep the status quo is ridiculous. Those who think gay marriage is wrong have valid/religious/social reasons for opposing it. Their beliefs are rooted in more than just the status quo.
Religious Conservatives should be welcome at CPAC, but not groups organized around such mystical behavior.
So should conservatives who are accompanied by 7 ft. rabbits named Harvey.
Really get real.
JustAl-
Thank you for your analogy. It is upsetting to read messages from people that radiate such animosity and ignorance. I am too close to the problem to see easy solutions. But I will state this, if the organized gays wish to assist in stopping the take over of our government by tyrannist socialists. Please, hold my hand and let us fight together. I’ll not comment on your love life, just don’t comment on mine.
By the way, we are all God’s creatures. He will judge our behavior.
Al, I actually think we shouldn’t accept those who don’t believe that we have unalienable rights and that it is our Creator who endows us with them.
Actually, that’s a pretty good litmus test not for just being a conservative but for being an American.
Look, I have no problem with people being religious, or with what consenting adults do with their genitalia. Neither of these should be political issues. I personally don’t think the government should have a say in marriage so long as it is between consenting adults, and the Federal government certainly should not be involved.
Homosexuality, drugs of abuse (alcohol in particular), abortion and cow tipping all existed when the Constitution was drafted, yet none are mentioned as the domain of federal jurisdiction. That means all of these so called “issues” are covered by the tenth amendment.
As a life long Porcupine Libertarian, I dis agree with the social conservatives on many, many things. Attempting to use the federal government as a blunt instrument to impose their world view is absolutely, interchangeably the same as the socialists on the left, only the final vision is different.
BUT, while I will point out that I disagree, and that, in my opinion, their goals drive votes to the leftists, I will never try to EXCLUDE them, the way they try to exclude fiscal and defense conservatives who do not share their social/religious agenda.
If people seriously think that letting homosexuals have a rolled up piece of paper in a shoe box in the back of a closet with a seal on it somehow makes THEIR rolled up piece of paper in a shoe box in the back of a closet worth less, then that’s THEIR problem. BUT, if they drive votes and power to the leftist over their personal sexual or religious bigotry, then that is EVERYONE’S problem.
By the way, your quote is from the Declaration of Independence, which, unlike the Constitution, is not the basis of our legal system.
If we stick to the Constitution and let citizens exercise their own choices while living with the consequences we can not fail. If we try to “engineer” the society to match some fantasy that never actually existed we can only fail.
I couldn’t have said it better! And thanks for introducing a new term to me: porcupine libertarian. I Googled it and I love it.
Heaven is only for Christians, Jn.14.6; not for porcupines.
But liberty is for everyone, not just bigots.
If Heaven is for Christians only then you are welcome to it. Personally, my G-d believes in religious diversity… so long as one lives a peaceful life in harmony with her/his neighbors (near or far), practicing the Golden and Silver Rules, then that person will live with G-d in their heart. FWIW: your post seems closer to resembling the creed of the KKK or Aryan Nation more than it represents what the typical American believes.
Some of us don’t see the issue of gay marriage as being about gay marriage, but see it as another tactic in the on going war against Christian civilization. If gay marriage is codified, we know there will be a new demand forthwith.
Does anyone know what percentage of the population is gay and what percentage of parents want their children to be gay? If 10% of the population is gay, does that justify restructuring society to accomodate them? And if 90% of parents don’t want their children to be gay, why promote it? To please the minority?
The argument, that traditional heterosexual marriage is not fairing well, as a justification for gay marriage is specious and a non sequitur. The social ills that plague traditional marriage are welfare, pornography, hedonism, and moral relativism, all promoted by mass media and statists. And if gay marriage is legalized, then why not polygamy and other forms of marriage? (Several years ago a woman in Israel wanted to marry a dolphin.)
There is nothing preventing gays from marrying one another and living happily or not ever after. But that isn’t enough. It has to be thrown, like a pie, in the face of traditionalists by being made the legal equivalent of traditional marriage.
So GOProud marries into CPAC, then who’s next? Fiscal conservatives for abortion? Social conservatives for socialized medicine? The NRA? AARP? Obama? Reid? Pelosi?
Gee, I am a fiscal, Constitutional conservative. And, oh wow, I believe in first term abortion. (A twelve year old classmate of mine died from a back alley abortion. Two children dead!) And you prefer I no longer participate in conservative politics or organizations. I do think I have just been insulted. And my reaction is not very ladylike.
And, oh wow, I believe in first term abortion.
That means you are against 2nd trimester abortions which are constitutionally protected hence legal in every state, so I doubt you’d be welcome in the Democrat world, assuming, of course, you have the same courage to speak to your convictions as you do here.
Are you, then, suggesting that Dee should belong to neither party? Perhaps Dee should not vote, even for a fiscally conservative Republican? I find that view short-sighted.
Dee, I don’t know why you support legalized abortion because your friend chose a back alley abortion and died. Why not support help for women in these types of personal crisis ? If your friend had chosen to have the baby and put the baby up for adoption, both would be alive today most probably.
Coming at the situation from the viewpoint of the baby’s rights, which are real and not to be ignored, legalizing abortion because someone died attempting to unjustly take the life of another, that’s like legalizing bank robbery because robbers are sometimes shot and killed by police during the holdup.
I hope you see both points.
.
I can only speak for myself, but if you want to kill babies, I must warn you that God has promised to damn those who do so. Better shape up before its too late!
I would have thought that a Constitutional conservative takes to heart the words in the preamble “and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Prosperity”. If your 12 year old friend died from a back alley abortion, there was a serious problem, but the problem wasn’t with the Constitution nor the social conservative’s understanding of it.
You should get updated on your facts. Far more women are being injured and killed in America’s legal abortion clinics today than were ever injured or killed in back alley abortions.
In fact, before Roe vs. Wade, the back alley abortion was the rare exception, not the rule. Most abortions were done very quietly, in a doctor’s office, with great care. They dared not mess it up, simply because it was illegal.
Now, abortion clinics are the least regulated medical facilities in the country. Horrors like that recently exposed in Philadelphia are not rare. The only thing rare about the Philly situation is that it was publicized. Had the “good doctor” not been running a drug trade, he’d still be in business.
Oh, all those statistics you heard about women being harmed in back alley abortions?
NARAL founder and abortion activist Bernard Nathason simply made them up, helped by several of his colleagues, and fed them to the news media, who lapped them up. They laughed about doing it.
Who says? Bernard Nathanson says. I suppose he would know.
http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html
“Heterosexuals have done a fine job of destroying the institution of marriage long before gay unions became an issue. Divorce, cohabitation, lax sexual mores, and out of wedlock births have combined to radically alter the concept of marriage, changing it from “death do us part” to “until I get sick and tired of you.” The nuclear family has been largely replaced by “blended” families where children from two, three, and more marriages are raised in homes where the old rules simply don’t apply.”
Swell, then let’s really give up and throw gay marriage into the mix as well. Europe TOTALLY embraces gay marriage and has a huge gay rights movement, and what has it gotten them? Even WORSE divorce rates and even MORE single-parent homes. Just because there is moral decay in this country doesn’t mean you have to give up and add to it.
But for a few years now my central belief has been, why the heck should I be FORCED to care about the sexual preferences of anybody else? Why do gay people feel this compelling need to feel loved and accepted by everyone? Why can’t they just live their lives and leave everyone else the hell alone? Why is it that a minority of say, maybe 5% of the population, think that the other 95% of the population has to accommodate them on EVERY ISSUE ON THE PLANET? In our out-of-control politically correct world that we live in today, everything now has to be measured against whether or not we “offend” anyone, ESPECIALLY GAYS!
What makes matters even worse is, I don’t really understand what was so terribly wrong with the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy in the military? If you really didn’t make a big deal about being a homosexual and just lived your life, then what difference does it make what the military rules are? So long as they can’t ask you about your sexual preference or sexual lifestyle, who really cares what you do in private?
But that’s just it. With gays, there is no such thing as being “private” anymore. Everything MUST be out in the open, you MUST agree with their sexual lifestyle, and YOU WILL conform to their demands, whether you like it or not. And you’d better agree with them, or they’ll sue the pants of you and keep you in litigation for years to come.
And that really is the problem. If we start getting in the business of not only condoning homesexual lifestyles, why not other lifestyles as well? How about polygamy? I’m sure there are more than a few Mormons out there who would love it if that was legal. Or how about having the right to marry your cat? I’m sure there’s at least a few women in California (especially in Berkeley) who would jump at the chance to do that. And how about having sex with under-age kids? What if some group of people say they see nothing wrong in having sex with a 10-year-old and that it is their Constitutional right to do so and that NOT letting them do so would be descriminating against them as a minority? Don’t think it could happen? Well, how many of you 30 years ago actually thought we would be having a discussion about actually allowing gay marriage? And now look where we are.
Nope. If gays are claiming that, morally, we are going to hell and and a handbasket and that even conventional marriage is a disaster, the answer is NOT by making matters worse and condoning just about any form of sexual behavior there is. And please, as for “lax sexual mores,” if I were a gay supporter I wouldn’t be condemning heterosexuals about that, not when the AIDS epidemic wiped out thousands of gays mainly because of their promiscuity. There are plenty or reasons why marriage is in trouble today and a lot of it has to do with social-welfare issues, financial issues, and even with major problems in the black community. Gay marriage isn’t going to make any of that go away and may even make things worse.
So stop trying to literally shove a sexual lifestyle down our throats. And please, please, allow me the right to disagree with a sexual lifestyle that I don’t agree with. As with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” I really don’t care what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom, but allow me the right to disagree with it and not have to create laws, actual laws, that say that everyone must bend to their will, their lifestyle, and their demands simply because they want to live with members of their own sex. What’s next, affirmitive action for polygamists?
“Because *I* don’t like you and find your behavior to be offensive, *you* must hide who you are from me and submit to having fewer rights.” Typical conservative bullcrap. Freedom for me, but not for thee.
What you’re saying is bullsh*t.
Freedom to do whatever you want in your home (which no one here disputes) isn’t the same as “freedom” to ask others to accept what you do, and demand that they do not diagree with you, or to ask them for imaginary rights on the basis of your behavior.
Hey, Truth Time, I guess you’re just plain too lazy to read what I said. But to far-left trolls like you I’m not surprised at the reaction. I specifically said I don’t care what homosexuals do with their lives, especially in private. But I do resent having them force their lifestyles and their beliefs on me. A more accurate statement for a jerk like you would be, “Why all the freedom for thee and NONE for me?” Why do gay people deserve everything they want and we have no say in the matter? Forget about how we feel about traditional marriage or disagreeing with gays for social or religious reasons, but why should a small minority determine how the vast majority of the country should live? Nope, you’re going to have to do a lot better than that if you’re going to change any opinions. Personally, I don’t go for this tyranny by the few stuff.
In what ways are gays seeking to change the way you live? Now I’m confused.
Well Polly, for starters, there have been two votes in California against gay marriage. On both occasions, those votes were either overturned or threatened by gay activists who sued and brought the case to the 9th circuit court (probably the most liberal in the nation) of appeals in California. If the people have spoken through two elections, why can’t those votes be respected? But no, because the gays demanded that they were right and the rest of the state was wrong, they continue to bring the results of these elections to court. And to have a vote of literally millions of people overturned by about three or five judges is just insane. But the major point is, what’s the point of voting if your vote is simply going to be overturned by some judges? This is legislating from the bench and is a direct assault on democracy in this country. That’s one of the first ways my rights are directly threatened because of “gay rights.”
Then there are the “politically correct” far-left liberals in schools, universities, and local and state governments throughout this land of ours. Unless you tow the politically correct line and totally agree with the far left views on gay marriage (along with a host of other liberal views), you may not get a job at a University, you may not get tenure, you could be ostracised at your job or office (especially if you live in New York City or San Francisco or Los Angeles), and in some cases, a gay person could also sue your corporation if he or she even “thinks” that they are being descriminated against. All of these problems basically cut off free speech and prevent people from voicing any views that may differ from those held by the politically correct crowd. Don’t believe me? Then try being a conservative and hold conservative views and still try to hold a job on a major newspaper in this country or main stream media television news network. Basically, if you don’t agree on the P.C. agenda for gays, you are marked in many industries and you can kiss your career goodbye.
And let’s not even get into whether or not you’re against gay marriage on either religious or moral grounds. If you DARE raise any of those objections, the politically correct far-left crowd out there will either try to shout you down as being “intolerant” or, worse, a bigot. Never mind that you have a right to an opinion and have a right to comment on the laws that could be passed in this country. Nope, to the far left (and they control most of the media in this country, especially in Hollywood), only their opinion matters and NOT yours. Again, in a democracy all opinions should be allowed to be voiced, not just the ones liberals or the far left think should be heard.
This is a direct assault on our liberties and it must stop. You should be able to hold any view you want on any subject you want. But not today. This is how “gay rights,” cloaked in the form of political correctness, has already had a huge effect on individual liberty in this country.
Libertyship, I agree with you that the vote should be respected. But that doesn’t answer my question.
Are you saying your life has been changed because you can’t speak up at a job interview and say that you don’t think gays should “marry”? Doesn’t sound like a huge problem.
Are you saying you work for a newspaper and can’t speak up and say that gays shouldn’t “marry”? Really kind of a small “lifestyle” change for you, I think, though all politically correct speech restrictions are abhorrent.
Got other examples of how “they” are seeking to change your life?
Polly, you far left liberals are all the same. When an argument is inconvenient for you, you just blow it off. You asked me for some examples and I gave you several. You asked me how my life was directly affected by gay rights and I told you about the two votes in California. I’m sorry sport, but if you think that taking the vote away from the people of the largest state in the union isn’t such a big deal, then you really are lost. Never mind the fact that if I lived in California, I’d be really upset that my vote didn’t count at all. And simply saying, “I agree with you that the vote should be respected,” isn’t really cutting it. Try a little more outrage that the one person, one vote thing doesn’t seem to mean much in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals these days.
And if you don’t think that the inability to be honest and speak your mind at work is such a bad thing, or to use your own words, “Doesn’t sound like a huge problem,” then you’ve obviously never had a real job, are a liberal student who never had a real job, or a left-wing troll who never had a real job. If you have to be in fear every day of the week at your job for fear of not being seen as “politically correct,” and you have to live in this fear because of far left issues like gay rights, then that really is a terrible way to have to live. But you obviously don’t understand this because you obviously agree with far-left views and would, therefore, blend in fine in an environment like that. That is, of course, assuming you DO have a job, which I doubt.
Then in one breath you say, “Politically correct speech restrictions are abhorrent,” but in the next you say if you work at a newspaper changing your view just so you can keep your job is “Really kind of a small “lifestyle” change.” Great, so lie, don’t have an opinion that diviates from the far left playbook, and keep your job. Yes, that sure sounds like a “small lifestyle change” to me.
I’ve seen lawyers, teachers, and people in the corporate business world ALL have to hide their conservative views simply because they did NOT want to seen as “intolerant” or “bigots” in their own office. And for the politically correct crowd, gay “rights” is by far the motherload of PC topics, especially in universities and in news rooms. So for people like you to breez through life and say, “Hey, it’s no big deal to be politically correct,” simply shows that you are a far-left liberal who actually thinks there is nothing wrong in being politically correct. And for that I pity you, because it just shows you don’t have a single original thought in your head.
By the way, the only reason I’m answering you is becaue you raise so many of the same, stupid, arguments that far-left trolls on this blog bring up each and every day. But by no means repeat any of these ideas to any of your PC liberal friends. Because, if you do, they may just think that you have an original thought in your head. Then again, with that crowd, they’d probably call you a bigot or intolerant. Just shows you the PC crowd can tolerate anything EXCEPT people who disagree with them.
So, Libertyship, not hating gays makes me a left-wing troll, huh?
Meanwhile, YOU have just listed all of the reasons gays say “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is an untenable policy–a gay must “live a lie” if he or she wishes to serve in the military. Or, obviously, work for you.
So, Polly, if a person disagrees with your far-left views, then they automatically must “hate” gays, right? That’s yet another lovely way for far-left trolls to shut down either dissent or different opinions. If people disagree with you, just call them a name, right Polly? Yep, you liberals really encourage free thinking, don’t you? And I also enjoyed when you said gays had to “live a lie” in the military. Great, so they should be free to not “live a lie” in the military, but I have to live a lie that I hold liberal views at work so that I can stay employed or get a promotion. Now THAT is fair, isn’t it, Polly? But I’m sure you don’t have to worry about that where you work (that is of course, assuming you HAVE a job).
You know what, Polly? In our politically correct far-left world today, I sometimes wish I HAD all the rights gay people enjoy and which you would like to deny everyone else. Yep, I guess that whole 2 vote thing in California didn’t make much of an impression on you. But gays DO have the right to overturn those millions of votes simply because they don’t like it. Yep, that really is “justice,” isn’t it.
Try arguing with reason, rather than your high school intellect.
BRAVO/BRAVA, Libertyship46!
Thank you for your intelligent, reasonable, well articulated thesis, the very one outlawed by the “tolerant, diversity loving” lefties, which is why Polly keeps being “confused”. (Nice try, Polly.)
I have my personal religious convictions against the “rightness” of homosexual relationships, but I also know that that is for the individual to take up with God when the time comes. I am not so presumptuous to think I can speak for God in judging the other person’s conscience.
But I also know that the traditional binary (male-female) model is one of ancient religious definition and so arguments trying to enshrine it in law don’t have a constitutional leg to stand on.
It is entirely hypocritical to say, “the federal government has no authority to tell me what health insurance I need,” and in the next breath add, “but it should step in and ensure X definition of marriage is the only legal one.”
Note my philosophy does not lead to a federal endorsement of gay marriage, either. I don’t believe the federal government has the authority to define marriage one way or the other. That, like all other government functions not specifically given to the federal government by the constitution, is something that falls under the legal authority of the states.
Yes, the federal government will need *some* working definition for taxes, federal pensions, and other things related to the running of ITSELF. For this purpose, skirt the issue entirely – establish a new legal entity called a “household” with qualifying rules similar to claiming dependents on one’s 1040 (just more permanent).
GOProud should absolutely be welcome at CPAC. We’ve spent decades arguing that people can come together over common sense, conservative solutions and need not be defined by identity politics. The media love to paint our fringe as our base, but if we begin to allow the few homophobic bigots in our ranks to define our direction, then maybe the media were right all along…
You are right!
One of the primary reasons for marriage is a man’s need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access. Marriage is a religious matter not a government matter.
Stay out of my healthcare choices and stay out of my marital choices.
“But I also know that the traditional binary (male-female) model is one of ancient religious definition and so arguments trying to enshrine it in law don’t have a constitutional leg to stand on.”
Really? BIOLOGY has nothing to do with parenthood and kids’ well-being?
Your statement above is utter poppycock, Patrick. Read some of the intelligent, non one dimensional comments here.
No society has lasted long after embracing homosexuality. Such values are incompatible with the values on which America was founded.
I should have read Roger Kimball’s column before I commented. He quotes the late Irving Kristol:
America was not founded on capitalism. It was founded on a shared set of moral values. When those values are destroyed, so is America’s liberty.
Or was America founded on freedom, or at least as much freedom as respect for the rights of others allows?
Even so, originally women were second-class citizens and thought unworthy of voting. Blacks, even more so, were second-class citizens. It seems there are some who so miss having second-class citizens that they would make gays second-class citizens.
Just a question, Do the organizers of CPAC think they will get enough independents and gay conservatives to make up for the disappearance of social conservatives? Also to convince conservatives of your sincerity, I recommend the head of GOP Proud avoid calling anyone who disagrees with him a homophobe on that bastion of conservatism MSNBC.
Yes, Deidre, assuming you are one of the social conservatives that will leave the Republican party if it embraces conservative gays, go to another, more socially conservative party. Or form one; it will go nowhere, you will have NO power, but you’ll be showing your superior moral values, and that’s all that matters.
I am convinced that “being gay” is not a choice. Only a fool would “choose” to be a member of a minority that is shunned by many. And neither my little brother nor my little sister is a fool.
On the other hand, if you can describe the heart-wrenching process in which you engaged before you “chose” to be heterosexual, I may be convinced. Describe away.
Until then, I am happy there are gay conservatives–and they are hated and taunted by the liberal gays. If you don’t think that takes some courage, you don’t think at all.
Polly due to your family connections you are more emotionally connected to this issue than I am. I was simply trying to point out that you get more flies with honey than with vinegar. If GOProud wants to join the conservative cause fine, but calling your conservative allies homophobes on MSNBC isn’t going to win many friends.
Also, a social conservative party may not win any elections but the Republican Party will be just as marginalized and we will have Democrats forever. When we agree 80 percent of the time we really need to remember those who are our real political foes.
I agree that if the Republican party lost all social conservatives, they’d have a hard time winning elections. But the Reagan Democrats who voted for Reagan might have thought twice about it if Reagan had sworn to punish homosexuals (“punish” is Obama’s word; I don’t remember Reagan ever using it) and eliminate all abortions, especially if he seemed to believe that those social issues were the most important issues facing America.
As I recall, Reagan was always–really, always–positive and upbeat and I do not remember him demeaning any group, as I’ve seen here. I’m a conservative and it embarrasses me to read such mean-spirited comments from my supposed fellow conservatives. I usually attribute mean-spiritedness to the Democrat party, especially its rather large and vocal Far Left contingent.
Yes, my family members have made me more sympathetic to gays, but I’ve also met many of their gay friends and find them intelligent, witty, kind, and generous. I just can’t work up a good hate for them.
No one has said anything about hating or punishing gays.
GOProud and its two attack dogs – Barron and LaSalvia – are the ones promoting hate by calling people bigots and bullying them into accepting the gay agenda. They have attacked several people who have more conservative credential than they do – Jim Demint, The Heritage Foundation, etc.
I for one have had enough of these sniveling yap dogs.
Kipling, if gays are trying to “bully” people into accepting their views, they’re making a mistake. The conservative gay web sites I have visited are far less judgmental, even understanding of the viewpoint of anti-gay-marriage conservatives. They prefer logic and persuasion. They did not march in the anti-Prop-9 gangs in California. They happily report to the liberal trolls who angrily post at their sites that they were welcomed with open arms at Republican gatherings, even though they revealed that they were gay. And they find fiscally conservative ideas attractive. Visit gaypatriot.net for a more measured take on gay questions.
Are you judging the entire GOProud and gay conservative movement by two antagonistic individuals? (I’m taking your word for their attitudes, since I have not seen them.)
Perhaps you can fine some solace in the fact that there are virtually NO abortions in the gay community.
Barron and LaSalvia are the founders and executive leadership of GOProud. Here is a link to the post by Erick Erickson at RedState: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/02/10/this-is-too-much-for-me/
Within the post is a link to an attack piece in which Barron and LaSalvia openly brag about their agressive and confrontational behavior. Then they publicly ridicule a solid Reagan conservative as a hideous bigot because she opposes same-sex marriage.
There actions are cowardly and they are less then men – not because they are gay – but because they are scum and bullies.
Polly, There has been DECADES of discussion – to no certain conclusion – about the nature/nurture aspect of homosexuality. You seem stuck on this throughout this thread. Doesn’t help your point.
I am certain gays don’t choose to be gay, but others posting here are even more certain that sexual orientation is chosen. All I ask is for someone to dredge up the memory of the time they made that difficult choice and describe how they managed to make the “right” choice. It might be helpful for those who are at the stage where they’re facing the choice, don’t you think?
Obviously, I don’t think there are more than a handful of people in the entire country who HAD to make that choice. That’s why I’m convince it’s NOT a choice.
And in truth, if a number of people WOULD describe their process in foregoing the very tempting “homo” and choosing the less attractive “hetero,” perhaps because the Bible mandates it, I would reconsider my position. You may think I’m unreasonable; I think I’m logical.
And so far no one has ever chosen to describe their painful journey to heterosexuality, even though they must know their descriptions could help to curb the flight to homosexuality by those with poor decision-making skills. What would YOU conclude?
Heterosexuality is the default setting, as evidenced by the vast majority of humanity that is straight. We are ALL born with a sin nature that predisposes us to certain recurrent sins. For some, this is greed or violence or pride. For many, we are predisposed to heterosexual lust and for a smaller percentage to homosexual lust. This is not a genetic problem, but a sin-nature problem. We were become old enough to understand sin in our lives, we rightly feel guilty about that sin (because God’s law is written in our hearts). We can choose to ask God to overcome that sin (the Christian way through Jesus Christ), we can try to overcome the sin ourselves (leads to recurrent defeat with resultant emotional and psychological scars) or we can give into the sin. Once we choose the latter course, then we are given over to a depraved mind, and no longer feel the internal warning signals. However, we also remember how that felt, and thus wish for others to justify our choice.
Homosexuality is a predisposing sin for some, which I agree they did not choose. They have my love and compassion. However, they do not have my endorsement. To give that would be providing them a disservice.
What happened to “real politics”? Welcome them with open arms & take their money. Just don’t allow any of their personal agendas come to play.
Ponder this:
If there are no absolutes and family is an antiquated tool of bourgeois oppression, why is having gay marriage an absolute must?
Let me be clear – I am not prejudice about Gays. Whatever makes your boat float – I just don’t want it constantly in my face. It seems this is all you hear about from the liberal corner.
In Nature I know of no animal who has same sex sexual partners. BTW I am aware of the two penguins they are an anomaly and they don’t have sex. They just hang out together.
Humans were given intentional organs which are for an intended purpose – pro-creation. And who was pro-creation intended for? Used for anything other than pro-creation? I rest my case.
I Love my friends – male and female but I don’t want to have sex with them nor do I want to raise a child with them.
This is a good Article. It may make one think differently about being Gay. Your opinion is your own.
http://inclusion.semitagui.gov.co/PublishedAuthors/Media/Antishyster/V11N3-TruthAboutHomo.pdf
You are incorrect when you state that no animals in nature practice same-sex behavior other than friendship. One of dozens (hundreds?) of writings affirming this fact is: http://www.livescience.com/3697-sex-behavior-animals.html. You should Google before you post.
I realize that such a finding would put the lie to the “choice” issue–unless you believe animals are evil and make evil choices, of course–but perhaps you should keep an open mind.
That’s what leftist, atheist “science” is producing; same lies, junk and fraud as AGW and “climate change.”
You seem to be far more at ease with the obamabots rather than Conservatives.
If you’re suggesting that anyone who doesn’t believe that gays CHOSE to be gay should vote for Obama, don’t you think that’s a little bit exclusionary?
If you’re suggesting that I should attend the Obama rallies, I think you’re asking way too much. Sorry.
I would be interested in reading the story of your weighing hetero v. homo, and the tough decision you finally made. I admit, I had an easier time; becoming gay was never an option for me–I just liked men better. For that matter, I still do. Usually. Some men just aren’t very likable.
Well I quess I have to be included into the negative christian group you talk about because I have nothing to do with anyone that is know by me to be gay. I have members of my family that are now ex-family members that are confess gays. And as for patting a bunch of gay conservatives on the back I won’t do, and anyone truly christian should not acknowledge this organization either.
Congratulations. I assume you shun atheists, too, as well as anyone who is pro-choice. You probably should shun smokers and drinkers, too, as they are damaging the bodies God gave them. Oh yeah, and fat people–how dare they do that to God’s body?!
There are a few gay men that I admire greatly, who are so generous and giving as to make me feel stingy and selfish. The criteria by which I judge/evaluate people do not include what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. And I admire promiscuous gays no more than I admire promiscuous heterosexuals.
But if you are certain that God made certain people in such a way that you should hate them, then just congratulations on your high-mindedness and purity. I can see that you’re very proud of yourself.
As for me? Welcome, GOProud.
You said:
“But if you are certain that God made certain people in such a way that you should hate them…”
God didn’t “make certain people” God gave people free will to make choices, good or bad, their call.
Choosing the homosexual route is a BAD choice, and the crap that the left is peddling that homosexuality is “biologically determined” is just that, crap not science.
“Choosing the homosexual route is a BAD choice, and the crap that the left is peddling that homosexuality is “biologically determined” is just that, crap not science.”
Exactly. It’s no different than if the idiots at NAMBLA claimed (and they may – I don’t know) that having the urges to have sex with small boys is an urge ‘from God’.
When Wesley Allen Dodd was asked why he killed little boys his answer was that it was an urge he couldn’t shake – and if given the chance he’d have sex with and kill little boys again. He saw no reason to change his behavior. He was hanged by Washington State for his crimes.
My point is this: humans act on urges – some like their urges flavored with different spices. For some to declare that ‘spice’ a gift from God is ludicrous. Wesley Allen Dodd had urges too – but it was no gift from God – and neither is homosexuality a gift – or genetically predisposed. That would be something that would wither and die on the vine of DNA. How could it possibly survive as a genetic twist?
Once again, I ask you to describe the various considerations you took into account when you made your difficult decision to be heterosexual rather than gay. No one has ever described to me the pain they suffered when they reached the decision to be heterosexual rather than gay, or given their rationale for their ultimate decision.
I have admitted that I made no decision whatsoever; I always preferred men, so perhaps I accept too easily that gays have NOT made a choice, they’re gay because they’re gay.
Please convince me that most others struggle mightily as they make that decision–and only because they are strong and righteous do they become heterosexual (gays making the weak and evil choice, of course). I’ll be back to read your description/arguments.
I don’t think any of us could make a definitive argument either way, simply because we’d need to have serious knowledge of the mental and genetic makeup of millions of different people.
However, I don’t think sexuality can be completely hard-coded. If attraction is genetic, what do we do when we see it become much more fluid, such as bisexuality? If the desire is such, how can it suddenly be “discovered” later in life after spending years in a marriage and having children?
I think there’s enough uncertainty to make the discussion difficult, and not stick to any one explanation on the nature/nurture debate.
Yet, Dblade, others posting here HAVE made a definitive judgment. It’s a choice, and a bad one, they insist.
No one can know with certainty what’s in the hearts and minds of others, so I judge by what’s in my own heart and mind and by what logic tells me.
Using logic, I don’t think the existence of bi-sexuality negates the “hard-wired” argument at all.
And I’m no more certain of my own conclusion than the others are of their opposite conclusion. Yet they seem only to base their conclusions on Scripture, relieving them of any need for logic or introspection.
…is futile, because Moran censors the response.
GOProud has a history of attacking social conservatives and supporting liberal issues. When confronted they portray themselves as the victim and anyone who challenges them as bigots.
Here are some links, many to the GOProud website:
1. The repeal of DADT by the lame-duck Democratic controlled Congress.
http://www.goproud.org/goproud-praises-senate-vote-on-don%e2%80%99t-ask-don%e2%80%99t-tell-repeal/
2. Letter to Congress urging the suppression of social conservative issues.
http://www.goproud.org/tea-party-leaders-release-letter-urging-house-and-senate-gop-to-avoid-social-issues/
3. The condemnation of the Family Research Council and an attempt to brand them as liberal.
http://www.goproud.org/frc-and-the-liberal-gun-grabbers/
4. The attack upon Liberty University and other social conservative organizations after the 2010 CPAC.
http://biggovernment.com/bparks/2010/02/26/conversation-with-goproud/
5. GOProud has removed references to their support for the repeal of DADT and Same-Sex Marriage from their early legislative agenda.
6. GOProud attack upon Jim Demint.
http://www.goproud.org/jim-demint-trying-his-best-to-make-alvin-greene-look-sane/
These are specific and reasonable issues in which to discuss their inclusion in CPAC. However, I still believe their participation is desirable. Good links.
Participation is not the issue. GOProud has become a co-sponsor of the event and has used their platform to attack other conservative organizations. They are intentional divisive.
Redstate has a good piece and a link to one of these attack pieces / hit jobs done on people who oppose the gay agenda.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/02/10/this-is-too-much-for-me/
Exactly, Kipling. Dee’s response above typifies the naivete of too many on the right just thinking, “oh, if we only let more folks in the tent, we’ll have a bigger tent!” RUBBISH. Divide-And-Conquer is the objective not only of the Left but also of the (for lack of better words) Country Club establishment Republicans. Don’t buy into it!
Erick Erickson of Red State has a different take on this matter and it’s personal, the smearing of a friend by GOProud for opposing the gay agenda.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/02/10/this-is-too-much-for-me/
Erickson links to a GOProud attack piece on a solid Reagan conservative. After reading the piece I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Barron and Mr. LaSalvia are bullies who try to tar and feather anyone who disagrees with their agenda. They are after all very small, mean men.
The Reagan conservative coalition consisted of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and strong defense conservatives. GOProud has problems in all these areas. Please see the links below.
1. When it comes to the gay agenda, government regulation of business trumps conservatism for GOProud.
A link to their own website. http://www.goproud.org/goproud-supports-domestic-….
Be sure to check out the co-sponsors GOProud joined with to pass the legislation. It includes the ACLU and SEIU. I thought GOProud was a fiscal conservative organization?
2. Fiscal Conservative issues on which GOProud has not taken a stand or has completely ignored: earmarks, public unions and pensions, union issues like secret ballot and right to work legislation
National Security issues on which GOProud has not taken a stand or has completely ignored: Start Treaty
On other issues, GOProud has actually supported the AFL-CIO and other labor organizations. GOProud supported the repeal of DADT by the Democratic controled lame duck Congress. How did that improve national security?
I thought GOProud had solid fiscal conservative and national security credentials? Why again are they at CPAC? Or does CPAC now support the positions of GOProud?
Please note that this is not an exhaustive list. Simply a list of issues that have come up since the lame duck session.
3. Does GOProud really have the credentials to be a conservative group? Why should a relatively new and socially liberal organization be allowed to attack social conservatives who formed the origninal Reagan conservative coalition?
http://www.redstate.com/dryun/2011/02/07/goproud-…
4. The inclusion of GOProud and representatives of The Muslin Brotherhood at CPAC is an attempt by the ACU, David Keene, and Grover Norquist to redefine conservatism by shattering the Reagan conservative coalition.
I would hate to speak for the honored President, but I can safely say that he would not support the willful and malicious destruction of the conservative coalition he labored to build.
I’m afraid you’re incorrect about Ronald Reagan. He worked among many homosexuals in Hollywood and I’ve never read or heard a single word he said indicating that he believed homosexuals were evil or lesser people in any way. If you can provide a quote, I’ll admit I’m incorrect on this point, but I believe he was more accepting of all mankind than you are.
Once again you miss the point entirely.
The point is that GOProud is not a conservative organization and to include it at CPAC is to intentionally try to redifine conservatism and breakup the Reagan conservative coalition. I am sure Reagan who opposed that since he worked hard to build it.
Reagan’s personal views on homosexuality are not related to the issue. Nor, really, are my own.
Re Polly: I notice that she misses the point ALL the time.
Please explain why GOProud deserves a place at the table. They are a single issue group. They claim to support conservative issues on their website but so far there major effort has been the repeal of DADT. What major issues have they advanced other than their own gay agenda? So far GOProud has been a lot of smoke and little substance. Unfortunately, most of the smoke has come from attacking solid Reagan conservatives and demanding that they tow the GOProud line or be labeled bigots and losers.
If GOProud’s sole issue were DADT, they would find a much more friendly home in the Democrat party. I love that YOU are absolutely certain they are only interested in gay issues. It illustrates your ignorance.
Examine the links I posted above. Most of the links refer to the GOProud website. GOProud may claim to be conservative but their positions on social, fiscal, and national security issues demonstrate otherwise.
Until you have done your homework, please don’t call anyone else ignorant. It demonstrates your own ignorance.
Through one of your links I got to the GOProud site and found this:
GOProud represents gay conservatives and their allies. GOProud is committed to a traditional conservative agenda that emphasizes limited government, individual liberty, free markets and a confident foreign policy. GOProud promotes our traditional conservative agenda by influencing politics and policy at the federal level.
I don’t, frankly, find anything too subversive in that statement. In fact, if I were describing myself, I might use the same language.
So from me, welcome, GOProud!
GOProud is long on rhetoric and short on substance. In your exhaustive search, did you happen to find a specific conservative accomplishment? Did you find a specific conservative program they have endorsed and contribued to its accomplishment?
Here is an example of their liberal fiscal policy and committment to government regulation of private business.
When it comes to the gay agenda, government regulation of business trumps conservatism for GOProud.
A link to their own website. http://www.goproud.org/goproud-supports-domestic-….
Be sure to check out the co-sponsors GOProud joined with to pass the legislation. It includes the ACLU and SEIU. I thought GOProud was a fiscal conservative organization?
Endorse whoever you will but let us not pretend they are a conservative group. No matter how many times you randomnly say “conservative,” GOProud is not one.
Kipling, of which of your “conservative accomplishments” are you most proud? All most of us can do is talk and vote; I assume you have actually “accomplished” something conservative?
So, you admit that your exhaustive search turned up no accomplishments for GOProud. Yet, with nothing to show for their vaulted “conservatism,” they feel free to go to MSNBC and attack Jim Demint who did a lion share of the work electing conservatives to the U.S. Senate. Erickson at RedState demonstrates how they viciously attacked a lady who has used her personal influence and skill to shepherd young conservative organizations. Most recently, Barron attacked the Heritage Foundation, a true stable of the Reagan coalition.
Now as to me personally, I would stack up what I have done and continue to do against these self-important blowhards any day. Atlhough most likely, they would run crying to their mommies in the main stream media. Isn’t it funny how these guys are given prime spots to attack their betters. And by betters I mean people who have done and continue to do a better job at advancing conservatism.
A place at the table? These mouthy punks should not be allowed to clean the table.
@ Kipling
I think Polly is locked into GOProud *NOT* being a “homosexual agenda” group, which I believe they clearly are, based on their actions and words. Flawed argument….
Aw gee, Kipling, ya got me. I’m not going to do an exhaustive search for GOProud’s conservative accomplishments. If they have not, by themselves, accomplished something “conservative,” they and I are alike in that respect. I assume they talk and they vote, as I do. I know some try to convince others, in blogs and likely as individuals, of the superiority of the conservative position–as I do. I know they point out the folly of many of Obama’s policies and programs–as I do.
I see you still insist on judging the whole of GOProud by a couple of abrasive representatives. That’s your right, of course, but there are many, many Republicans whose words and attitudes I would NOT want to be judged by.
@ Ed Wallis
It does seem to be a bit of a lost cause, doesn’t it. : )
I judge GOProud by the actions of its founders and executive leadership. Barron and LaSalvia are just not two guys who happen to be a part of GOProud. They are GOProud. If gay Republicans do not want to be associated with their tactics and lack of spine, then I suggest they find another organization.
I am a Republican Libertarian and I have no problem with Gay Republicans. I’d much rather have them give their money and votes to us than the Democrats.
I must be the only one who remembers this, some old guy once said, “Someone who agrees with you on 90% of your issues is an ally.”
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Where does the Constitution say that the Christian standard for marriage, or anything else for that matter, is the law of the land? That sounds like establishing a state religion to me. That means the power of the state should not be used to enforce one religion’s views upon the public in general.
This country is founded on religious tolerance. Tolerance means tolerating that which you do not approve of or wish to do yourself. It is easy to support freedom when all you are talking about is freedom to do those things you do approve of and yourself. It gets harder when it is things you do not approve of.
To the Christians who find same sex marriage abhorrent; I say, don’t do it if you don’t want to. No one is going to force you to do it. No one is talking about banning different sex marriage.
As to the argument, “if we allow this, why not Polygamy?”, I say, why not? That is an older type of family organization than heterosexual marriage, and is in the bible.
Why is it so hard for Christian Conservatives to mind their own business and keep their big fat noses out of other people’s lives?
Where does the Constitution say that the Christian standard for marriage, or anything else for that matter, is the law of the land?
It’s called a democratic republic filled with 90% Christians, making law via the legislatures, partner.
We have religious freedom. Muslims, Hindus, and Jews dont make the laws of this land to suit their worldviews, because they arent in the majority. Homosexuals dont get to either.
The Non Establishment Clause is not the Seperation of Religion from Informing Law.
“It’s called a democratic republic filled with 90% Christians, making law via the legislatures, partner.
We have religious freedom. Muslims, Hindus, and Jews dont make the laws of this land to suit their worldviews, because they arent in the majority. Homosexuals dont get to either.”
That sounds like just the type of behavior the First Amendment is designed to save us from.
I have no problem with Christians denouncing homosexuality, or anything else they view as sin, or refusing to admit any class of sinners to their ranks. That is part of their religious freedom. But at the same time, I do not believe they have a right to impose their religious beliefs on others via the law. Conversely, I do not think it right for Gay groups to attempt to purge Christians from the public square for expressing their views on homosexuality.
What is needed is more tolerance on both sides. Tolerance is the lubricant of liberty.
And this is just my personal opinion, but I am sick of both sides of the Culture War.
It’s called Civil Law and is older than the states. Quite simply it is a basis of civil rules or laws that a populace or “civil body” agrees to live by.
Having a couple of oddballs skip into your village and declare that everybody else has to live by their rules is a non-starter no matter where you are.
They can mind their business. I’m all for it. However they also can not support parties that endorse positions against their faith, and refuse to raise money for them, volunteer for them, or vote for them.
So, you are a Republican Libertarian, who says “Why is it so hard for Christian Conservatives to mind their own business and keep their big fat noses out of other people’s lives?”
Without the Christian Conservatives how likely would it be that we all live under a single-party rule – namely Democratic? You Republicanism then wouldn’t mean a thing. And marriage, between a man and woman, is not just a Christian institution.
The author is missing what this is all about.
For conservatives, at least, this issue is about religious freedom. It is an issue that has been important to Americans for four hundred years.
The homosexual rights movement seeks to limit religious freedom, by restricting the degree to which people can live out their religious beliefs. Can some “reasonable” limits be put on religious practices by the majority? Of course. This has always been the case. What we are arguing about is the definition of “reasonable.”
Same-sex marriage is a major attack on the religious freedom of mainstream, orthodox Christians. The people pushing for its adoption should at least acknowledge this. They could then understand the sometimes-virulent opposition by social conservatives to their agenda.
Other religions also consider marriage as being between a man and a woman. How about Islam, for one?
Islam is a bit problematical as an example, as it also supports one man marrying several women.
Excellent piece, Mr. Moran.
It’s absolutely absurd that two gay people who have been together for 50 years can’t get married, but a pair of straight druggies that just met can. That’s irrational. It’s far past time for us Republicans to get on the “right” side here. Just say no to bigotry.
Matt – #28 Reply
If there are no absolutes and family is an antiquated tool of bourgeois oppression, why is having gay marriage an absolute must?
As a conservative lesbian I appreciate your support of the inclusion of GOProud at CPAC, Rick. And I also appreciate your stance on the issues of gay marriage and DADT.
However, I don’t agree with the rationales you provide to backup your positions. I think some of the arguments put forth here in the comments section have genuine validity. There will always be the folks who absolutely despise gays and lesbians and those folks, thankfully, don’t have the political clout they had a few decades back.
But there many other people, good people, who have legitimate concerns about where all of this is taking us as a nation and they have every right to be heard without being relegated to the fringes of the conservative movement. Just as there is a case to be made for gay marriage, there is also a case to made against it.
Let’s not fall into the same tactics that the Left uses to marginalize those with a different points of view.
What you do in the PRIVACY of your bedroom in none of my business, and NONE of your business to tell US about in a public forum, or to go around pushing it on everyone’s face, asking for “rights” or approval.
So, I can’t identify myself as heterosexual because what my sexual preferences are is no one’s business? I certainly don’t want to push it in anyone’s face. Personally, I think LesCon expressed herself very well.
Thank you, LC.
LesCon, I appreciate your comment. Thank you.
Homosexuality is wrong on many counts, too many to list here – it doesn’t belong to a Social Conservative Agenda, period. No discussion.
Because of her stance on gays (re-twitting a twitt by the likes of a character like “Tammy Bruce”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammy_Bruce
to indicate a policy on DADT) I have quit the ranks of Sarah Palin’s supporters.
Stay pure, Ben. And in the furtherance of your purity, I suggest you research all firms from whom you buy goods or services (and those who provide goods, services or raw materials to those firms) to be certain that they do not employ any Evil Gays. Question store clerks, gas station attendants and pizza delivery men before you buy their products; you don’t want to provide paychecks to those people. I’m certain that with enough effort you can live a reasonably comfortable life while you avoid supporting Gays or anyone who supports Gays.
But for goodness sake, DON’T watch any television or live productions of any kind. You know the entertainment industry is full of Gays.
God created some people to be shunned. I’m sure He created you to carry out the shunning for Him.
Yes, they’re everywhere especially in the immoral Hollywood – that’s why I no longer go to/watch movies. That small minority has taken upon itself to destroy morality and ‘traditional” family values.
Disgusting.
Would you quit attacking people, you troll? It’s none of your business how they believe just as your beliefs are your business.
Sarah Palin is a moron who has a very superficial understanding of societies, social issues and social policy.
People read about her listen to her or watch her for entertainment and curiosity to see how far ridicule would take one. Because she’s pretty, she is cashing in on all them suckers and their curiosity.
Sarah Palin is really a moron? I’m certainly glad to read such a definitive declaration by an obvious member of the intelligentsia.
Well, I’m so sorry that I don’t have a shallow knowledge and understanding of Western Civ, social pathologies, fiscal and monetary policy, and of foreign relations. I’m so sorry that I’m well educated and conversant on the arts and literature. So sorry, my deep apologies.
Hmmmm, sez who?
Care to provide some links to prove your point of view (saturday night live skits and comedy central don’t count)?
Here we go again. Another paint-roller job by Moran. The entire “right” has a gay problem because of certain narrow elements. ‘Scuse me, Rick. By your logic, the entire left has a gay problem, because some of their elements do. Or did you notice the demographics behind Prop 8?
One can only wonder what the true motives are of a person (or group) who promote themselves as Conservative – and Gay – but seem to promote the Gayness (in a victimhood manner) more than the Conservativeness.
I accept a great many things as they are – as being unchangeable – or not needing changed. I also accept a great many things as being unfair and in need of changing. I don’t see the gay marriage ban as needing to be changed.
While I’m sure there are many gay couples who are loyal to each other for life – and would love to get married – as a whole we are talking about a group of individuals who think nothing of having multiple partners in a single day and have sex partners numbering in the thousands or more in a lifetime. This is not typical behavior in the heterosexual quarter.
If GOProud want to become part of the mainstream conservative movement they need to find a cause that isn’t perceived of being victimhood related. Of all the things conservatives are – it is not about victimhood.
Slowly, even “conservatives” will come to realize the Capitalism, Amerikka, and Christianity are wrong, as Jerimiah Wright and his pupil Obama believe; as William Ayers and his pupil Obama believe; as EUropeans from Hitler and Lenin to Heidegger and Sartre have believed.
This is just another march forward: Amerikka will reform to accept homosexuality, communism, and anti-racism. Soon the old America will have completely passed from this Earth. No more will the pathetic cries of the homophobes and racists and exploiters be heard for “freedom.” Let their “liberty” of bigotry and intolerance be surpassed and replaced by social justice.
“Social justice” = Leftist euphemism for “the reason there’s mass graves everywhere”
Were Hitler and Lenin pro-gay? Is that what drove them?
I don’t know if these marxists were pro-gay or not, but what I do know is that marxists and libertarians are very similar. Both lie and are intolerant of opposition, just the same way that you gays are intolerant of your critics. All of you, marxists, gays and libertarians are hypocrites.
I’m sure you are correct that libertarian = Marxist; who can think of even one difference?! But one minor correction, I am not gay (not that that’s a bad thing). Sorry if I seem too tolerant.
Neither do I favor changing the definition of the word “marriage,” but I don’t think it would change my life one iota if the definition were expanded to include same-sex couples, other than having to internalize the new definition.
Patrick of Atlantis, Miss Anthropy, and others who see gay marriage as the gateway to polygamy and bestiality:
Slippery slopes are fun. Why can’t a government with the authority to force me to carry a pregnancy to term also force me to terminate it early? Why isn’t the flip side of illegal abortion illegal childbirth, as in China? Yeah yeah, the whole point of outlawing abortion is to preserve life — but it also establishes a principle that the government can determine the outcome of every pregnancy. Getting rid of embryos with genetic disorders sounds like a good lefty adaptation of anti-abortion laws to me. Do you want to slide down that slope?
If you don’t go along with my reasoning, then drop the silliness about polygamy and dolphins. The left will always bend a principle their way. That’s no reason to suppress it.
The problem is that you are asking social conservatives to capitulate. These social conservatives are believing in homosexuality as wrong because of religious reasons that are tied into the authority of their holy book. You lampshade this when you mention the secular conservative case, and not any religious one.
I don’t think they can capitulate without irrepable harm to their faith. I’ve noticed that the most progressive Christians on gay rights issues honestly have little idea of what the faith is outside of it, and tend to default to a secular progressive ideology with a biblical veneer. I know myself that it’s easy to lose faith once the authority is challenged.
So what you will do is alienate wide swaths of the base, who will realize that they have to choose between faith and political participation. You’ll gain your goals: GOP embrace of gay rights, but at the cost of making republicans a permanent minority party.
Thanks Moran for censoring my comment; I guess homosexuals can ask for their “rights’ but their critics must be censored. Way to go libertarians; you’re no different than obamamnoids.
The post by me that Moran censored was stating that homosexuality presents an existential threat to Western Civilization, because it attacks Christianity and its core values.
This existential threat is as strong as that by islam, and more so than the denger from the budget deficits and debt levels currently running under Barry Soetoro.
Obviously “danger” not “denger” sorry for the typo.
The gay agenda is and aways will be to end traditional marriage. Their goal has been to chip away at the Christian, traditional and conservative base of America for decades with varying degrees of success. They used to say they just wanted to be accepted – now we must celebrate them LOUDLY! They assured us decades ago that they would never ask for marriage – now it is a right they are being denied. The truth is they want to destroy the Christian churches by forcing them to turn their backs on God’s Word and marry these blasphemers in the church. Simultaneously they are attacking Christian schools who forbid homosexuality – through the force of the law, which is Unconstitutional since the schools don’t recieve state or federal funding.
“Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” – John Adams
This issue will in fact be the hill that we so-cons will die on – and when we die, so will the Republican party.
I am not only a proud ‘right-wing funny-d-mentalist’ (that means I’m an educated Christian with a sense of humor), but also a graphic designer, which means that I am not just looking through a stained-glass prism that filters what I ‘know’ about homosexuality. Yes, my conservatism followed my conversion – or better said, flowed from it. However, I have always understood that while our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, we are not a theocracy. I also understand that we live in a pluralistic culture, and everyone has the right to think, worship, speak, and associate as they wish in keeping with our laws. I do not in any way wish for gays to be harassed or bullied in any way – privately or publicly. That said, I do not believe that they should be allowed to bully those of us who feel that their private sexual lifestyle remain exactly that – private. And I can tell you that EVERY SINGLE ‘out’ gay person that I know identify as gay first. And all the the ‘closeted’ ones (who are not as ‘closeted’ as they think) are lock-step doctrinaire gay-rights supporters. Even those very, very few who claim to be conservative/libertarian make it a point to always lead with how they are gay first and want to change the Party platform on homosexual issues.
All of which is to say that my anecdotal evidence is as valuable as those who know some gays who claim to not care about marriage, DADT, etc…
From a religious perspective, homosexuality is to be condemned. Those who choose to act upon their impulses will find no support in scripture for their behavior, only judgment. From an evolutionary perspective, homosexuality is a self-correcting genetic error, or at best a severe identity/personality disorder. I will lend credence to those studies by scientists who anthropomorphize aberrant animal behavior that attempts to equate such acts with human behavior when those same creatures they study accept surrender signals from outside of their species. Which is to say we are NOT animals, but something greater. We as humans have the faculties to not only understand but also act against our base natures. That some choose not to should only serve to show how far certain behaviors deviate from the norm.
On this particular matter, however, we have a very small, very vocal minority whose identity is bound in private behavior trying to make public policy based on said behavior. While that is their right as citizens, the greater majority, both religious and secular, who feel that such behavior is not only wrong but harmful to society, are being made to feel as if we are intolerant, hateful bigots. For the record, tolerance does not mean acceptance. I will ‘tolerate’ the fact that (being generous) 10% of the (again being generous) 3% of the population that is gay may wish to align with “80%” of conservative principles, but when they wish to push their “20%” agenda that would actually undermine not a small portion of the ‘common ground’, I will not accept that. This isn’t so much the tail wagging the dog as the brine shrimp steering the whale. And rest assured, as my previous anecdote stated, every one of those ‘shrimp’ I’ve encountered wish to steer the whale, and will not rest until they do. If we wish to really speak of tolerance and acceptance, then why isn’t it they who accept the fact that their “20%” agenda is not tolerable to the “80%”, not all of whom are coming at this from a religious perspective. We are being asked to give up our principles for a portion of our caucus that may be charitably considered a rounding error. The “80-20″ analogy is also weak in my view. If the “20″ that is in conflict is non-negotialble to the two opposing sides, then what does the other “80″ matter? And why should the rounding error be the side that is accommodated?
I have never been a fan of the ‘Big Tent’ analogy that some on our side tirelessly trot out in order to sound more ‘enlightened’ or ‘compassionate’. A tent has no foundation, and cannot withstand any serious internal or external pressure against it. Its walls are not fixed or permanent, therefore anything can crawl in under them. So when the inevitable storm comes, the tent folds. As soon as the storm passes, all that is left is a scattered, bedraggled group of fools who failed to see that only a sure foundation offers the support necessary to construct a shelter that can survive those storms and offer refuge to anyone who seeks it. Of course, anyone can create a foundation and build upon it, so if you don’t like the way this one is constructed, you are free to start your own project, instead of vandalizing that which you don’t like.
Here’s what I think is a better analogy (based on the 2008 Republican electoral result): 600 people who profess to support a set of principles which neither proclaims nor proscribes a certain behavior gather. Of that number, 400 believe that behavior is incompatible with not only their values but is also demonstrably harmful to some of the principles of the group. Sitting at a table in the corner are 6 people who claim to support the principles, but also wish to make their behavior acceptable to everyone no matter what. The 400 and the 6 know up front that there can be no compromise on their respective positions. That leaves the other 194 people who claim to have no dog in the fight to decide whether or not to get involved or try to ignore the issue. Most remain silent, though a substantial number have decided to try and ‘mediate’ between the factions for ‘the good of the group.’ This ‘mediation’ usually involves telling the 400 who do not support the agenda of the 6 to let them participate since they agree with most of the principles and try to ‘reason’ with them when they attempt to push their agenda. Some of the ‘mediators’ then object to any attempt to ‘reason’ after the fact, using their libertarian viewpoint to provide cover for libertine behavior. And when factions within the 400 begin to withdraw, they are held up for ridicule and invective by those who beforehand wanted to proclaim ‘tolerance’ for differing viewpoints. Which leads to more factions to decide to leave…
This is why there is a difference in response to an individual gay person attending the caucus, and a group that has formed to promote an agenda based upon their behavior. And to touch upon the ‘Big Tent’ analogy again and why I think we are ill served by it’s use: once the camel’s nose in in the tent, the ass is not long behind. I do know that you and I (and most other conservatives) share a number of things in common, and you would probably be surprised to know that I am not someone who supports turning America into a theocracy. I have ‘broken bread’ with many who disagree with me, including an ex-BIL who was flaming. Also, remember that I am a Graphic Designer by profession, which means that I am usually the minority in both my political and spiritual outlook. I have had to keep my head down and mouth shut on more occasions than I can remember. I do so because I understand that these organizations need the ’80%’ of me that utilizes my skills, not the ’20%’ of me that disagrees with some of their policies or agendas. That is a courtesy that I wish was extended to me by those who won’t shut up about what should be private. And there can be no ‘benefit of the doubt’ extended when the explicit, stated purpose in 4 of the 10 GOProud Agenda points are about extending rights and benefits based upon their behavioral identity, including opposition to DOMA and repeal of DADT. An agenda based upon those points may be Libertarian, but it is not Conservative.
Let’s put it this way: if we lose the gay cons, we lose how many votes again? We have already seen what happens when just part of the social con vote sits out – what do you think happens when we decide that the party is no longer representing our values? We already lose the rhetorical battle in the MSM no matter what we do, so that is a non-factor from my perspective. The 2006 (and to a lesser extent the 2008) elections provide a clear view of what happens when the ‘values voters’ stay home. Since 66% of Republican voters surveyed by the Washington Post in Nov. 2008 self-identified as conservative/very conservative on social issues, good luck trying to replace them with the 1% of the Republican electorate that identified themselves as gay. They should be welcome to the party, but they should understand that the playlist is set. There is another party down the street that is already dancing to their tune.
You may view this as an absolutist screed – nothing more than another jeremiad from a religious nut. Well, I have been told I tend to pontificate from time to time, and my e-mail sig is an aphorism I coined some years ago: “Those who believe the world is made up of shades of grey have been staring at the line between Black & White for so long that their Vision has blurred.”
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams
Yes. Yes. And Yes.
To add to, or at least throw in my thoughts to your missive is this: tolerance has three faces:
1. Social tolerance – e.g., don’t point and laugh at the men in ochre robes walking through the concourse in their bare feet;
2. Legal tolerance – all Americans are to be equal under the law. In the case of homosexuals, an example might be civil unions and all the legal privileges that pertain thereto;
3. Intellectual tolerance – all ideas are welcome, but NOT EQUAL. Nor are all ideas true, or right, or correct.
With homosexuality, those of us who are Bible believing Christians are absolutely in favor of #s 1 and 2, but we would be dishonest if we treated #3 as a requisite follow-on of the other two.
In and of itself, it’s a good thing that the republican party is arguing about all issues now, it makes no sense to hide things until some time that’s deemed appropriate in the future. The stakes are too high for us to ignore any issue.
So, now what do we do?
Well said, gozergrfx. It appears that, as you pointed out that, “gay pride” is the #1 agenda for GOProud, based on links provided by other posters. Could they be a Trojan horse meant to divide and conquer? One poster claimed that a member of GOProud has appeared on MSNBC attacking conservatives that criticized them.
It’s good that you dedicated social conservatives are brimming with self-esteem, but it wasn’t the withdrawal of social conservatives but rather the withdrawal of all conservatives who despised the high-spending of the Republicans prior to 2008, plus those who bought the Democrats’ story that the financial meltdown was all Bush’s fault, as well as the fault of the Republicans.
The 2010 election results were NOT the result of Republicans’ emphasizing social issues. The TEA Party stayed away from social issues. The candidates stayed away from social issues. America will fall much more quickly if free enterprise is destroyed and “profit” and “hard work” are turned into dirty words than if gays are allowed to marry.
GoProud and like minded groups have proven time-and-time again their motives are not for improving the well-being of society but to focus more so on their own needs. What’s obvious is GoProud’s largest motivating factor in this rodeo is pushing for ever-more ‘sexual independence’.
The ‘lodges’ and other associated ‘Men’s Only’, Women Only, Dykes on Bikes type clubs are just as scatter-brained in their method sold under the moniker, ‘social/gender/political justice’.
Like tens of millions of U.S. citizens, my sexuality does not and will never define me.
As for those commenting of our country’s high divorce rates, a great deal of that can be attributed to the late 60′s-70′s women’s, minority movements and later packaged as ‘PC, multiculturalism’ nonsense.
Call me silly but I look at the content of individuals. Their religion, race, sexuality etc,. doesn’t enter the picture.
If you want to continue to see the liberal democrats win elections, continue to support the bigoted religious right. The religious right is highly intolerant of gay marriage, abortion, and many other causes supported by a wide range of political beliefs. The blackest day in history for the Republican Party was when they crawled in bed with the highly intolerant, my way or the by way, religious right. They can say that they proudly stuck to their guns as they brought the Republican Party down to its knees, and reduced them to a 2nd class party.
This is Crazy #40
Crazy -
If all opinions are equal, how come a liberal who disagrees with a conservative is open-minded, but a conservative who disagrees with a liberal is a bigot?
Being Gay/Lesbian is a ‘Life Style’. Period.
No, being a bigot is a lifestyle choice. Sexual orientation most definitely is not.
I would have thought by now readers of PJM would been able to determine Moran a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Moran is the resurrection and new generation of mealy-mouthed RINO at best, moral relativist more likely – useless to the good fight.
And if you prick Moran’s balloon with a sharp needle, the diffusion of “gay marriage” would come leaking out.
Moran, when are you going to understand most of us social Conservatives welcome gays to the table to push back against the Left, to stop the massive overspending, to halt Progressive politic in all forms – the fact we do not accept your desire for redefinition of “marriage” notwithstanding?
Gays are not my enemy, nor are they my role model. I can easily accept them as political ally, while recognizing issues of division. And I’ll take a good Gay Conservative over a “straight” RINO anytime, anyplace as political friend.
As one of those hateful, backwards, ignorant social conservatives, let me say, “You guys need us, far more than we need you.”
We are the ones who organize.
We are the ones who campaign.
We are the ones who contribute.
We are the ones who come out and vote.
You want us to be quiet and sit in the back of the bus?
Well no thank you.
Because truth be told, we are the party…not you.
Here! Here! And bravo! The GOP needs to ask itself what happened when they told us to shut up and suck it up in 08 and we decided that we were just going to sit this one out?
Care to give a link to the GOP telling you to “shut up and suck it up”?
Your post seems to counter point #5 of the post you are applauding. I guess we can only count on your vote if you get your way or you’ll go off and pout.
As for the post you are supporting, rather than waste a separate reply, I’ll simply say that if “you are the party” your attitude will certainly mean that yours will be the third party in short order.
The GOP isn’t, but the thrust of the article we are commenting on is telling social conservatives to stop cocooning and get on the right side of history, in so many words.
As for third parties, I don’t see dropping social conservatives making us more attractive. We already have this in libertarians: if we stood to see great gains by tossing the religious right to the curb, we’d probably already would have lost them to the libertarians, and be the third party already.
Proclaim that to the Reagan Democrats. It should make them smile, if only wryly.
There are no Reagan democrats. Obammacare proved that.
Any sources, statistics, links to back these outragious claims up?
This is all pissing and moaning about the color of the curtains while the house burns down. Nice. Marriage in society has broken down from the collective malaise of welfare; lowest-common-denominator education; and the PC doctrine of victomology. It is specious to suggest that a steady as she goes figure of 5% or so of the general population could create so much havoc to our society, militant and screechy gay-pride parades notwithstanding. Moran is certainly offbase on many conservative topics but he is spot on on this one. The Repub tent that only focuses on Economy, Deficits and Security (sans the Patriot Act BS) is the winning tent. Anything else picks BHO off the mat and breathes life into the Marxist agenda. That doesn’t mean endorsing alternative lifestyles, it simply means not considering them at all. “Well, Mr. NYT reporter, I do have strong feelings regarding gay marriage, abortion, et al, but that is a discussion for a day when our fiscal house is in order…”
“[D]eath do us part” to “until I get sick and tired of you.” Never heard it put this way before but I like it; straight and to the point and applicable to all unions, straight and otherwise.
But this is not about unions established on the basis of human sexuality and the conventional treatment of sexuality in general, a societal hot potato no matter how you look at it. This is about Conservatism and the inclusion of all like minded folks of all colors and persuasions who share common values. No one of any color or sexual persuasion has to love, admire or even like each other but ALL deserve the right to gain acceptance and respect if they choose to try.
It is not enough to preach tolerance and respect only for those who are an “exact” fit, whatever that is. Homosexuals are stigmatized by their sexual proclivities because they are yet another minority and, for heterosexuals, they are not considered “normal” and the latter do not relish being considered sexual objects by members of their own gender; it’s discomforting, disturbing and intimidating. So was eating in the same restaurant or using the same restrooms with Blacks some years ago but society eventually saw how ridiculous and immoral that was and has made and continues to make the changes demanded by common decency and the recognition and acceptance of our common ancestry. Changing the mindset on same sex relationships is proving equally and some would say even more difficult than that but it will come because, like skin color, Gay, Lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender individuals are what they are, human beings first and foremost and if they’re conservative they should be welcomed into the fold. Not to do so only reinforces the equally negative view of the conservative movement as a bunch of homophobic neanderthals.
As for Gay marriage and DADT that’s a bone of contention that needs a lot more chewing but, in my view, not relevant to the question of inclusion of GOProud in the Conservative movement. We had best not set ourselves up as an exclusive club and risk yet another flame out in 2012.
You have it all wrong my friend; gays are there to destroy the conservative movement. They’re the trojan horse within conservativism. They have destroyed everything thet have been involved with, from the Church to the Army to businesses to the press to family and its values.
Libertarians are hypocrites, just like the radical left: they censor all views they don’t agree with, being “libertarians” in name only. Accordingly, I don’t expect this post to show up – Moran will censor it (like a good “libertarian”) the same way he has struck down many posts.
But the truth can be hidden – it’s out there for all to see.
“can’t” not “can”
I’ve seen no evidence that gays have destroyed any Church or business or family. Any family that has lost its “values” should not really blame that on the existence of gays.
But most especially I’ve seen no evidence that gays have destroyed the Army or any other branch of the military; our military seems to me to be fantastic, even awesome. Maybe the truth cannot be hidden, but I haven’t seen it. Even the Democrats, trying their best, has not destroyed our military, and they have both power and microphones. Would you care to elaborate on exactly how the destruction of the Army by the gays has manifested itself?
Instead of politicizing, why not stand up for what stands the test of time, and is found to be good.
After all, are you saying that the people who say good things about men and women being different, that they are wrong?
So why not put the political arena in its place. Regardless if it is convenient, or inconvenient.
Lovely. There are 300,000,000 seats at the table, let’s have meeting about who should be on top tonight. Go ahead people, all talk at once.
As it stands we ave 25 million employees of the (Govt +) corporation that thinks it owns the country, that also thinks all the rest of us left unchosen can also sit in the back of the bus — that’s where The Table must be.
Getting tired of al these ‘ideas’ with barcodes on them? wanna try a little freedom? don’t buy into any more of this kind of ‘representation,’ soon even your doctor won’t care if you’re sick.
We need some empty offices to house the homeless, lets start with those at HUD.
Let’s do some redistribution of the wealth our own fine selves — by walking away from their table.
Although I have very little sympathy for the gay agenda, I don’t see any good reason to ban a conservative group from a conservative event. It’s not like attending the same event as GOProud somehow makes you gay — or, more seriously, makes you agree with them. There’s plenty of room for differences of opinion within conservatism (sometimes we seem to disagree more than we agree); I’d rather we left purges to the liberals, who won’t countenance, say, pro-lifers in their movement. On this side, we answer free speech with free speech. Let ‘em come, and if you disagree with them, debate them.
So I agree with Moran’s conclusion, but not most of his reasons. In particular, out of all the arguments commonly offered for gay marriage, the one I would most like to see retired for its utter idiocy is this one…
Then there are the traditionalists who see gay marriage as a threat to the institution of marriage. Unfortunately, they are about 40 years too late.” Heterosexuals have done a fine job of destroying the institution of marriage long before gay unions became an issue. Divorce, cohabitation, lax sexual mores, and out of wedlock births have combined to radically alter the concept of marriage, changing it from “death do us part” to “until I get sick and tired of you.”
Excuse me while I bang my head on the wall. Yes, marriage is in an appalling state, no question. And when something is broken, you FIX IT. You don’t just take a hammer to it at random and see what happens. If you make a wrong turn, you don’t keep driving in that wrong direction until you wrap around the Earth. No-fault divorce has been a disaster, so let’s WORK on that, not just give up on the whole idea of marriage being serious and sacred.
The world would be a better place if people didn’t focus so much attention on pleasuring their own genitals and that goes for everyone no matter their sexual orientation because just someone can be “heterosexual” doesn’t mean they can’t be some hard-core perverts.
Black this, Brown that, Woman this, Man that, Gay this, Hetero that…
TIRED OF IT ALL!
“We had best not set ourselves up as an exclusive club and risk yet another flame out in 2012.”
So, if by including GOProud the conservatives lose 10% of the religious right to gain 1% tolerant independents, that is good?
What if we gain 11% tolerant, fiscally conservative independents? Not a bad trade-off, really.
This is not about tolerance of homosexuals, or even about the institution of marriage per se. It’s about longstanding societal norms being redefined for everyone because a militant minority is angry that their lifestyle exists outside of the traditional definition. It’s one thing to be tolerant of alternative lifestyles, and I believe most people genuinely don’t care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own lives; but it’s another matter to redefine social institutions in the image of these alternative lifestyles. It’s called “alternative” for a reason — it deviates from the norm. The union of man and woman has long been society’s basis of marriage because it is the only union naturally capable of producing a society in the first place. You can pretend otherwise if you wish, but it won’t make it so. The idea that this union, the only one which transmits life from one generation to the next, be marginalized to the status of just another also-ran is a big part of what offends people.
It’s also a sleight of hand for some to suggest that it’s only about the individuals who would participate in it. Not when you’ve gone and made society as a whole redefine its oldest institutions it isn’t. Changing the meaning of marriage introduces a number of follow-on issues. One that is already a separate controversy is the adoption of children by homosexual couples. In other cases it goes further, with artificial insemination and rented wombs being used so that the homosexual couple can “have” a child. Now, I’m sure the advocates of gay marriage will dismiss these concerns in an equally flippant manner, but let’s not pretend that it doesn’t raise ethical questions. Namely, is it right to deliberately introduce a child into an aberrant parental relationship?
It’s probably the case that neither the predictors of doom nor the libertarian idealists are correct about gay marriage. However, I do believe it is rash to set about knocking down what may (or may not) be load bearing walls in pursuit of sentimentalist pop culture conceits.
More to come later; first, it is off to dinner and then the social highlight of the weekend, the GOProud party.
Uh-oh. There go the Powerline boys. Someone, quick — call them liberal douches like Charles Krauthammer.
Social conservatism, especially strong, traditional family values, is THE bedrock of conservativism. Loose sight of that and all of society will crumble. Gay marriage is an oxymoron and is as tabu to a real conservative as bestiality, pedophelia and incest. Just because a group is for lower taxes and limited government doesn’t automatically give them a seat at the conservative table. “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but loose his eternal soul?” – God
The fact that we are even having this debate is scary indeed. Gays are a huge voting bloc and are here to stay. Lots of them are nice sane conservatives. They should be encouraged and welcomed as everyone should be. They would be welcomed in the Tea Party
First off I’m wondering why a couple of my posts have not been cleared by the censoring board of PJM. None of my comments were in any way offensive. If Rick Moran is the arbiter of who does and who does not get posted perhaps a better system should be instituted. I’ve had this problem with other comments I’ve made in making posts on Moran’s articles.
Anyway – My take on GOProud is this: they seem to be a group dedicated to driving a wedge between the hard right Christian conservative and the socially less conservative who may well be more of a Libertarian. From what I’ve gathered here and reading info about them on the web it would seem they are not what they promote themselves as. Certainly they are short on conservative action and long on promoting gay rights. That in my mind makes them a single issue group – the aim is to promote the gay lifestyle – not conservatism.
Their singular motive for associating with conservative groups like CPAC is to promote their lifestyle. Promoting the gay lifestyle is nearly always done in the name of victimhood. Conservative values are never promoted via victimhood status.
I’d like to think I’m something of a social libertarian – I couldn’t care less what you do in your own home as long as it is with a consenting (and legally able) individual.
While there certainly are gay couples that have been loyal to each other and do wish to marry – for the most part we are talking about a group of people who have multiple sex partners in a day – and can count in the thousands the number of sex partners they have had in a lifetime. This isn’t the norm in the heterosexual quarter. Why would marriage be so important to them? The short answer is – it sticks another thumb in the eye of the very group that most opposes their lifestyle and opposes gay marriage – Christianity.
That isn’t a good enough reason to lift the ban on gay marriage. It isn’t any reason at all – it is nothing more than revenge.
Moran – you should do your homework before promoting a quasi-conservative group to conservatives. They bring nothing to the table except for their perceived victimhood. I’m not even sure they’d bring any votes. But since most of your writings are nothing more than RINO stuff – I’m not surprised you’d promote GOProud as conservative. Trouble is this group quacks like a duck. Just like you Mr. Moran – just like you.
Many posts by numerous posters have been censored here.
It seems that “libertarians,” like good authoritarians of the radical extreme right (socially and politically indistinguishable from the radical and extreme left), like to censor opposing points of view.
Libertarians (and the so-called “conservative” gays) advocate a lawless, immoral society (where paedophilia, drug use, atheism and the like rule supreme). Their consern for “small, fiscally responsible government” is a phony pretext for a complete and extreme rightwing anarchy. Their only difference from the radical left is that the left wants a complete “government-run” societal system.
Good gracious, your certainty is stunning!!
Your ignorance about Libertarian philosophy is as staggering as your outright ruddness.
I can’t believe you and now myself have wasted this much bandwidth on such a pathetic topic. With so much else going on: Our nation being dragged to communism (that is not too friendly to gaydom), the ME tearing itself apart from jihad; jihad coming to America (again not too friendly to gays and gaydom); inflation creeping in our destitute economy, and the list of hits keeps going,that is infinitely more important to Americans, we have gays crying for more and special rights.
First, show me the gay gene and then we can talk. Second, cite me the stats that demonstrate that gay men are NOT the leading cause of the spread of HIV/AIDS. Third, tell me where, and I am getting sick of this, and why minorities are allowed to trample the rights of the majority and why does the majority-that being white, non-gay Americans allow minorities to continue to rule the culture, courts, schools and our lives. Fourth, how do we know that GOProud is not a leftist plant organization using its name to incite dissent among the right.
If gays want special rights and want people to support them go left. I’ll take social conservatives over gays in my party all day long. And when the sh&t hits the fans, don’t come running back to us when Mr. Sharia wants to separate your head from your body.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I am such a neanderthal.
All human behavior is genetic. Both specific behavior and propensity towards certain behavior. You don’t need show a specific gene to prove that. The human body was created by by G*d including it’s genes. The social cons should respect G*d’s creation.
Christians should stay out of discussions that involves any kind of science period. Science is not pick and choose, where you can decide which kind of science you like and which you don’t based on religious believes.
Says who?
Go tell that to the blacks and other “minorities” too, libertarian pseudo-scientist.
“All human behavior is genetic.”
Go tell that to all hundreds of thousands of social scientists who have written, over the past century or so, millions of volumes about how “environment affects behavior” too.
What a moronic statement.
I have a few question that you could perhaps address in your next post on the issue:
1. Please explain how a logical or a rational basis differ from each other.
2. “Because the institution of marriage has already eroded so much, it’s OK to give it a death knell trough gay ‘marriage’”. Are you really this pessimistic?
3. It’s sure possible that some resistance to gay marriage comes from bigotry (you hint at that direction), but please address the arguments in good faith.
4. “Because cocoons never work, we shouldn’t use them”. Again, you’re much more pessimistic than I am. Parents use cocoons to teach their children their worldview. After they leave home, the (now adult) children have to test that worldview anyway trough various influences. Having a cocoon gives a safe landing for human beings, we shouldn’t just dismiss the whole notion.
5. Please, don’t use the slavery analogy. Just don’t. This is not on the same moral standing: nobody is advocating for the death penalty for gays or the stripping of human rights from them. So please don’t use this analogy. This is a discussion about what is the characterisation of a particular political philosophy.
6. “Because a trait is inherited, there should be no limits to its expression.” A person can have a gene that makes him/her suspectible to alcoholism: still the proper response in that case is support if they want it.
7. “Any two (or more) persons in love should have the advantages of being married.” I disagree with this. a) As a social institution, heterosexual marriage is the most economically efficient form. There’s no economic argument so subsidize other forms. b) Children look up to their parents to see the first “an ideal” man or woman. In homosexual couples, kids lack a father or a mother.
8. You don’t understand the difference between accepting someone as a human being and accepting someone’s lifestyle. Christianity says: “If you have homosexual urges, abstain from them. They will destroy you spiritually if you give in, and you will come to reject God”. Because homosexuals are human beings, they are worthy of brotherly love and support. Because homosexual acts are sin, they should be abhorred.
PS. There’s even no need in the political level to redefine conservatism: you can have alliances with some Democrats without “granting” them a title ‘conservative’ and make good laws. So GOProud can be an ally in spending and national defense issues, and an opponent in social issues.
Does social cons want gays to engage in promiscuous sex and one night stands? Why else would they be against gay marriage?
If the purpose of bringing GOProud to the CPAC convention was to drive a wedge through the conservative resurgence then I must congratulate the instigators.
Rather than focussing on the genuine problems America is faced w/ we are engaged in a food fight w/ a small group of malcontents whose sole purpose at these proceedings appears to be disruption.
For PJ media and Breitbart to be so gullible as too fall for such nonsense is a disappointment, albeit illuminating.
Hmmm, there is a bit of a conundrum here. While I could care less about what two or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home I do have an issue with homosexual marriage as a legal institution. Also please stop calling homosexuals “gay” they are not all happy, they are homosexual. Euphemisms only serve to muddy the water.
Many people here are touting the religious line but neglect to see that the “religious line” has its basis in solid fact and social common sense. One of the main goals of a religion or culture is to ensure its own survival and continuation. Why do you think there a prohibitions on the use of birth control in the Catholic Church? The one thing that homosexuals practicing homosexual sex cannot do is reproduce. Even our current level of scientific advancement cannot produce an embryo from two sperm or two ova. A homosexual society or religion would die without “breeders”. Even with “breeders” a society that is majority homosexual will eventually age and die out. In ancient times this meant being conquered by a stronger more vibrant culture. Anyone see a church for The United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing on every street corner lately? One of their tenants was the complete abstaining from sex by its members.
Even in societies where homosexuality was accepted the society had strong imperatives for the man to produce heirs. Homosexuality is an evolutionary and social dead end and ancient people understood this, especially in times where plagues and famine could wipe out significant portions of the population.
While the flower children of the 60′s and 70′s have done a bang up job of destroying marriage along with much else it should not be discarded or corrupted as an institution. The sole purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment for the raising of children who are recognized as the legitimate heirs of that union.
Love? Marriage is not necessary to love someone.
Legal rights of the partner? Homosexuals can gain the same rights through legal documents, so can non-married individuals who do not have a sexual relationship.
Lifetime commitment? Marriage does not ensure lifetime fidelity, never has and never will.
Sex? People have been having sex out of wedlock for ages.
You get married for one real reason, to have children and raise them as legitimate legal heirs. The rest of it is superfluous since all the “associated” things can be had without being married. Homosexuals cannot by any stretch of the imagination have a child together. They can have children with others or adopt but those are not the “fruit” of the marriage.
Now someone of going to point out marriages between people who cannot have children, the elderly or the infertile. These people still posses the “potential” to produce a child and are supporting the societal norm by being married. In addition a child needs a parent of both sexes as role models, here people often fail, to bring them up as well adjusted members of society. The same sex role model to show the child how to be a man/woman and the opposite sex parent to show the child what a good spouse is. Why do you think it is that “we marry our parents”? Why is it that children with poor or non-existent role models are often troubled and/or have relationship troubles?
Next if you’re going to redefine marriage from one man one woman why not go with polygamy, polyandry, and group marriage too? It actually fits the reasoning better than homosexual marriage since a child can result from one or more of the unions. How about marrying an cartoon character? I think they had that one in the Japanese courts not that long ago.
As for abolishing DADTDP it creates a “protected group” in the military. This undermines morale and cohesion as homosexuals will join for other reasons than they do now and a host of lawsuits will result. Most military personnel already know who the homosexuals are in their unit and it doesn’t matter because they behave and are treated just like everyone else. When homosexuality becomes protected and treated differently it will cause problems. Look at Maj. Hassan and his protected status as a Muslim, he had problems that were overlooked because he was part of a protected group. What can be abused will be and the abuse of the protected status of homosexuals will cause problems.
If you want to serve your sexual preference should not be a factor, if you drag it to the forefront it will become an issue. I don’t believe you need to be “straight” to shoot straight and there are many soldiers who have served and do serve with honor that are homosexuals. It’s the ones that are more concerned with being a homosexual than being a soldier that will cause the problems. Mark my words. DADTDP is there for a reason, it allows the bad apples to be discarded while allowing the good ones to be kept. Too many people leave off the “Don’t Pursue” part of that policy.
As for abolishing DADTDP it creates a “protected group” in the military.
I’m retired with 26 years of service in the Military Police.
No it doesn’t. The UCMJ Codes still forbid PDA and adultery and casual sex.
What repeal of DADT actually does is prevent the gay person from being thrown out if he puts a picture of his partner and family on his desk or in his locker or helmet.
In the Military, this will go one of two ways. Either the command structure will do its best to *not* see the forbidden sexual conduct, like I’ve seen them sometimes do with straights who violate the UCMJ, or they will double down on enforcement of the UCMJ rules on sex out of wedlock on EVERYONE and quit turning a blind eye to it.
I believe those who mention that GOProud is a Trojan Horse are correct. Without really thinking about it I’ve hit the nail on the head in my previous comment.
The problem with GOProud is that they have put their homosexuality first and defined themselves by it. They aren’t Republicans or Conservatives, they’re Homosexuals who happen to be Republicans by their own definition, that makes them suspect and people are rightfully suspicious. Every single member of GOProud could join their local GOP and work towards the same goals as everyone else without trumpeting to the world their sexual preference. No that doesn’t mean “get in the closet”, it means don’t alienate your allies before you even start.
Perhaps the leadership needs to read “Winning Friends and Influencing People”. You don’t endear yourself to people by emphasizing your differences first, you emphasize your common ground first. They aren’t here to win friends or influence people, they are here to ram their differences down people’s throats and force acceptance through calls of prejudice and bigotry if people don’t accept them.
With “protected” groups its always a one way street. I have a right to my beliefs, opinions, and practices and you do not. If you don’t knuckle under to my way you’re a bad person and we’re going to punish you. First we start by calling you a bigot, racist, etc. then we use the law to destroy you so that we strike fear in others who might oppose us. Tyranny at its best.
GOProud: A Trojan Horse – bingo.
Here’s the sad part to all of this.
This recreation of “Sodom and Gomorrah” with sodomites and gomorrites becoming so vocal and disruptive has set in motion a global dynamic of its own that will take a long time to equilibrate. By that time, many of the values America and the West stood for will be gone and the human population level will decline to levels that even the more optimistic of the anarcho-primitivists couldn’t hope for.
Humanity is on a high-speed, self-destruct path, liberalism supplying the fuel.
How many books on real social history has the author consulted? In any case, please don’t lump social conservatives with good marriages together and divorced liberals. That’s unfair.
Before the expressive divorce revolution, Christians begged the authorities to focus on the interests of children before adults and warned that it would hurt the institution of marriage. They were right.
Problem? Moran has “forgotten” that the conservatives were right and that expressive divorces did hurt society. So now those conservatives and others are warning about “gay marriage” and it’s time to listen.
Gay sexual behaviour should be treated no differently than fornication. If society is going to not only allow, but promote non-stop in every form of media, fornication – then there is no moral ground to exclude gay orientation from the orgy. The rate at which such behaviour spreads disease and emotional misery, including AIDS, depends on the number of partners – not sexual orientation. AIDS in Africa is spread mostly by heterosexual promiscuity.
The Conservative position should be that we don’t want government cameras in the bedroom – and it is flagrantly unconstitutional for the Federal Government to even think about it. The Social Conservative position should be that we still need a word that means a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman (and it is least confusing if that word continues to be “marriage”), and there is a state interest in protecting marriage (between 1 man and 1 woman) because families with a mother and father are the best way to raise future citizens.
Mr. Moran and most of those writing in support of GOProud want them included in the conservative movement because they are gay. It has nothing to do with whether or not they are conservative. In my posts at 22, 24, and 25 I offered several links – many to GOProud’s own website – which demonstrated the liberal, big government positions they have taken on several issues. I also pointed out traditional conservative issues on which GOProud is silent. No one offered a rebuttal that challenged the GOProud position. Almost every supporter has instead stressed the fact that they are gay. That says a lot about GOProud and those who want to include them in the conservative coalition. It says that their sexual orientation trumps everything else. It says that the conservatism sponsored by Moran, Simon and Breitbart has little to do with the issues and more to do with identity politics. Count me out of that coalition because it is simply a liberal one with a “conservative” name.
I am not anti-Religion; I am pro-Liberty.
I know too many gay couples in committed relationships, decades old, with children raised as morally responsible adults to agree with your arguement that gay unions are destructive.
See, I USED to be against Gay unions, until actual first hand experience in witnessing the love, responsibility, to include the rearing of children, and humanity of homosexual partnerships showed that opposition was morally wrong and destructive to society rather than the opposite.
The main problem is promiscuous behavior. My thoughts on it are that promiscuous behavior by anyone is destructive, even more so when straights do it because it can lead to unplanned pregnancies, unwanted children and abortions. Maybe straights need tougher laws against promiscuity applied to them than gays because of this. The cost is certainly higher.
You so-cons don’t speak for all society. I would argue that attempting to exclude fellow citizens from the societal contract of civil Unions, with its demand for commitment to one another for life is a mistake that drives those citizens away from rather than to living normal morally responsible lives. Because you reject them, they respond by rejecting YOU. This is actually how the leftwing driven gay political movement got started. They used heterosexual disgust and negative treatment of homos to “radicalize” gays and drive them to the left and to denounce living as a straight person does. Is that what you wanted?
So-Cons also seem to think that their values are exempt from criticism. They are not. As far as “traditional moral values” goes, if I think that your traditional values violates my or anyone elses right to Liberty, I will oppose it, fight to overturn it if it is law or ignore it.
You would also do well to remember that it used to be immoral and illegal for blacks to marry whites. It also was biblical and moral arguments that were used to justify black chattel slavery and the law at the time and social morality reflected that position. Social morality also informed and drove segregation and Jim Crow laws.
Your argument that Christianity supported the enslavement of African Americans is not only offensive, it is historical fiction at its worst. The abolition movement began as a Christian movement with the Quakers and quickly spread to all the mainstream denominations. British slavery ended due to the work of Christians William Wilberforce and John Newton. You might also want to check out the Battle Hymn of the Republic.
While some southerners did cite the Bible to support slavery, they twisted not only the words but the theology and history of the Christian church. People have used science to justify many autrocities, do you then reject science because a few people distort it in an attempt to prove their point.
Christianity teach equality in Christ for all. Slaves were considered fellow heir of the kingdom and the church commanded that they be treated as brothers. In the letter to Philemon, Paul even forced the issue of emancipation.
You also ignore the role of Christianity in the American slave culture and their resistance to slavery and attempts to rob them of their humanity.
People will always attempt to use religion, science, and morality for their own wicked ends. Are we to dismiss these things then because men are evil?
Feel free to reject Christianity. Your choice. However, your attempt to smear it is without merit and ahistorical.
Supporters of the gay agenda, including GOProud, reject the idea of civil union. They want full fledge marriage.
My point, which you obtusely refuse to ackowledge, is that morality or social norms are not always a force for good. Even when Christians are involved. You ignore it while presenting a “no true Scotsman” logical fallacy blanket defense of Christianity, denying that, for those who made the arguments endorsing slavery, prohibition, Jim Crow and other wrongs, they thought they were good people, doing good things for their community. Just like you think you are doing good by denying full participation in civic life to homosexuals, when they, as individuals, have done you no wrong, other than offend what you think is your God.
While we can certainly criticize and oppose leftism in all its forms as ddestructive to society, we certainly cannot exclude political participation by leftists, gay or not, right? What makes you think that a gay conservative has any lesser rights to participate and be recognized as an individual citizen of this nation with all the priviledges inherent in that notion?
Your blanket defense of Christianity in general ignores alot of atrocity and violations of human rights committed by those who were confident and secure in that by enforcing their morality and societal norms, they were doing good for their community and nation. Christians in America do not get a blanket pass on being subject to scrutiny, simply because *some* Christians got it right in the past. While you credit the Quakers with abolition, definately a good and right thing to do, we now have modern Quakers who support Palestinian terrorist government and supported the Kmer Rouge.
Your blah blah blah about the greatness of your form of Christianity is nullified by your support of laws and ideas that excludes my fellow citizens from full citizenship, subject to discrimination against them by law.
The Consitution and Liberty that respects individual rights and dignity and is our guide. Morality informs them but, since morality is being applied by humans it will never be perfect and indeed my very well be wrong. So we have our Constitution to be the backstop for those time when Christians (not Christianity per se)are wrong.
Now you are just constructing a strawman and blatantly making stuff up.
No one has said anything about excluding people from civic participation or the electoral process. No one has said anything about excluding people from political participation.
Clearly you have to distort history in order to prove your point. In essence, you attack is an ad hominum attack upon me and Christianity. You cannot show that GOProud is even a conservative organization. I have produced links to their own website that demonstrate the liberal positions they have taken on fiscal and national defense policy. In response, you attack me and Christianity. How does that refute my point that they are not conservative?
Christians are judge by the standard of Scripture. A true Christian will adhere to the Scriptures. A Christian who acts in direct violation of Scripture cannot legitimately or logically call himself a follower of Christ. It is not “no true Scotsman” agrument. Instead it is an analysis based upon an obejective and clearly defined standard.
As to your condemnation of the Quakers, how can you condemn or smear the Quakers who started the abolition movement in the early 1800s for the actions of Quakers in the late 1900s? Your attempt at quilt by association is rather thin. It would be the same as me making the argument that you are just like Hitler because Hitler had a problem with Christianity as well. Obviously, there is no connection between you and Hitler but the statement is just as absurd as your statments. As to the “some”, I understated the case intentionally. Read the history of the abolition movement because it is a history of Christians against slavery. Need I remind you that Harriet Tubman was a Christian. So were most of the white home owners on the underground railroad. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was also a Christian.
If you are going to use a strawman, please attempt to build a better one. I eagerly await your next distortion of history in attempt to prove a point that has nothing to do with whether GOProud is a conservative organization or not.
You won’t find one mention of me supporting GOProud as a group. I welcome all folks who are truly conservative tho, regardless of who they sleep with. As long as the “who” isn’t a farm animal.
Gee, that sounds an awful lot like how leftists merely accuse others of not seeing the “logic” of their arguements, therefore they must be “haters”.
You are still ducking my main point: that plenty of folks, who considered themselves upstanding Christians, and were considered such by their fellows and society at the time, in general, can do and did terrible things. Sure those good Christians opposed those things, but you don’t reflect that they were often in the minority in some of those communities and were opposed mightily by Christians. To bring it home, how do *you* know that you are the *good* Christian, doing good and not being a reactionary to what threatens your worldview?
Your argument is circular and heavily dependent on *one* interpretation of Scripture, translated God only knows how many times, edited by God knows what humans with who knows what agenda, therefor subject to errors and misinterpretation.
Your religion is not as objective as you would like to portray it as. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be Catholics and Lutherans and Protestants and Mormons and Baptists and Coptics and etc etc etc. Talk about puffing out your chest!
Your strawman is to turn this from a criticism of your wanting to use the force of law based on what you think scripture is, or what you’ve been told it is, to say that there can be no civil unions for gays, which denies them FULL participation in civic life with the attendent societal benefits of support for the responsible adult behavior of committment, lower taxes and community property rights into accusing me of hating Christianity, like some lib talking about racists in the Tea Party.
But, here’s really the issue that set me off, so I’ll ask you this: Do you think that supporting civic gay unions between responsible consenting adults is the equivalent of supporting legalizing pedophilia? Some of your feloow Christians on this board made that accusation rather pointedly. Are they good Christians?
@ SGT Ted
No one has accused you of being a hater or failing to see the logic. I said you are wrong. Not only are you wrong but you are demonstrably wrong and the only way you can pretend to be right is to distort history.
As I said before, Christians are judged by Scripture. Sincerity has nothing to do with right or wrong. You can be sincerely wrong. The Christian position should always be the position of Scripture and the Christian cannot bend Scripture to suit his or her own agenda.
As to the defense of slavery and Jim Crow, I might also add that science, psychology, and sociology were also pressed into the service of defending the peculiar institution. Do we now disregard those fields of study?
Christians who opposed slavery were not in the minority. In fact, southerners who tried to use Christianity to support slavery were in the minority and there arguments were seen to be clear distortions of the text. Abolitionists arguments were so popular by the 1830 that the federal government had to step in and ban the postal service from delivering their literature in the south because it was winning converts in the south. Unlike the Christian abolitionists, no clear Christian supporter of slavery stepped forward to mount a clear defense of the institution based upon scripture.
How do I know I am a “good” Christian? All Christians have to measure themselves by the standard of Scripture and how they line up with the plumpline of truth contained in Scripture. Scripture is not as confusing as you contend. In fact one of the four characteristics of Scripture is its clarity. The problem has always been that people don’t like what Scripture says so they alter it or they do not give it authority over their lives.
Is homosexuality the moral equivalent of pedophilia? I don’t know. I know that both are considered evil. What I do know is that Scripture roundly condemns homosexuality and that the acceptance of homosexuality is a clear indicator of a society in moral decline. Scripture reference: Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, and Romans 1:18-32. “…that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:21)
Romans 1:18-32 portrays homosexuality as a clear indicator that a society has abandoned any knowledge of God and that society itself will soon crumble. The only “Christians” who accept homosexuality are those who have jettisoned their Bibles because Scripture is clear on the subject.
All law is grounded in a sense of morality. The moral standard itself can be based upon many things – religion, philosophy, personal preference, etc. I will stack Christian morality against a secular morality any day. Atheism has given us nazism, nihilism, communism, socialism, etc. Atheist have slaughtered countless millions in the name of progress.
People have used science to justify many autrocities, do you then reject science because a few people distort it in an attempt to prove their point.
Ah yes and science is always questioning assumptions and honest scientists do just that.
But what you are saying, and the way you are saying it, there is to be no questioning of your religious convictions and opinion that some citizens who are committing no crimes aren’t worthy of society.
No one said you cannot question religious beliefs. What I am saying is that you cannot condemn Christianity because a few distort the faith in order to justify their own evil. If you condemn Christianity because some southerner in 1860 twisted passages to support slavery while ignoring other passages that called for equality among believers, then you have to condemn science because a few have twisted or distorted science to justify their own evil in the same way.
I haven’t condemned Christianity in the least. That is your projection I am afraid.
So far you have attempt to blame prohibition and the defense of slavery on Christians. Am I to assume now that you are commending Christians for what you preceive as their support of those issues?
As to Prohibition, which you blamed on fundamentalist Christianity: Theodore Roosevelt and Jane Addams both supported prohibition (temperance). Were they both fundamentalist Christians? Also, prohibition / temperance movements were not confined to the United States but occured in several European countries as well. Did fundamentalist Christians control and direct those movements? Wilhem II of Germany supported prohibition and international prohibition. Was the Kaiser a fundamentalist Christian?
@SGT Ted
Talk about avoiding the primary issue. My primary question to you has always been and is as follows: Why do you want to include GOProud in the conservative movement if they do not support conservative positions?
The question has nothing to do with Christianity, with the southren distortion of Christianity to justify slavery, with different interpretations of the Bible, or even different denominations. The question has to do with GOProud and the liberal positions on fiscal and national security policy.
You can rant about Christianity all day long while claiming not to do so but the simple question remains unanswered. Please answer it and then we can continue the discussion. Otherwise, you are simply trying to distract from a question you refuse to answer or cannot answer.
So, we;ve been talking past each other somehwhat.
I don’t want GOProud if they don’t support conservative positions. My first post about it was this which was on the other thread:
I applaud those conservatives who are trying to practice true inclusion of anyone who supports conservative principles, rather than staking out a “no homos need apply” rationalization of exclusion based on what should be a private matter when it involves adults.
The truth of the matter is that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly forbid nor demand recognition of gay marriage. Which should leave it up to the individual States to decide.
Trying to use the Feds to either blanket permit or blanket ban gay unions is to NOT be a conservative for limited Government.
If you want Gay marriage banned, start a Constitutional amendment process. If you win, fine, if you lose, whatever. But respect the electoral decisions of your fellow Americans in other States that choose to allow gay unions.
So, if GOProud is not supporting conservative small govt and free market principles, then they should be told to go elsewhere.
Speaking historical truths about people motivated by what they think is Christianity isn’t to bash the philosophy; it is to point out that since they are humans, they can often be wrong in their thinking, all while they consider themselves to be “good” Christians. Because it is historically proven that it happens, people being the imperfect beings that we are.
I also see a bit of hypocricy in that I dont’ see much vocal clamoring about gluttony and the need to Federal or State intervention to keep restaurants from enabling gluttony, since we as a nation have a weight problem. Because if sin is sin, why is the focus so much so on this one particular one and not others? Soddom and Gomorrah is a tale not just of homosexual sex, but of out of control promiscuousness. But, I don’t see much effort to shut down sex clubs or the “hook up” culture.
My own experience with friends and family who have long term, stable, responsible relationships to include the successful raising of children who are responsible and happy and successful in their own hetero sexual relationships and that perfectly mirror what we as conservatives say about the importance of intact hetero sexual families that I cannot but recognise the truth of it and support their complete inclusion in civil society in recognising their relationship equal to that of heterosexuals with all the priviledges thereof granted by law.
SGT Ted, I think we have closed out the discussion thread and thoroughly thrashed through the issue. We don’t agree and in many ways we come from completely different worldviews and starting points. However, I appreciate the discussion and the vigorous debate. I look forward to our future discussions. I promise not to say anything about big boy pants. : )
What? The horse is hamburger now? woops!
I don’t know if it is hamburger yet but I am afraid if we continue we will simply be repeating ourselves. As I mentioned earlier, we live in different universes and begin our discussions from different starting points.
Social conservatism covers many issues and at the local level social conservatives work on the issues you raised. We have organizations designed to strengthen marriage, teach abstinence, help single parents, etc.
We fight the marriage and abortion issues at the federa level because that is where the fight is at. Liberals have taken the issue away from the states and made it a federal issue. We still fight these issues at the state level but to restrict our activities to the states would be to lose the issue.
GOProud does not accept civil unions. They want to redefine marriage to include homosexual relationships. Marriage is the oldest institution known to man and has traditionally been defined as between a man and a woman. How does the redefinition of marriage, by the courts, to suit less tha 3% of the population lead to limited government? A government that can redifine a prominent social institution and ignore the will of the people is not limited.
I would be happy to leave the issues to the states but, until the liberals abandon the federal arena, we must confront them at that level. The state has a vested interest in marriage because it has contractual obligations and affects everything from financial to property and inheritance rights.