July 30, 2011 - 7:32 pm
Frankly, I wasn’t going to CPAC anyway, but I didn’t want to simply leave a “me too” on Roger’s post. I want to make it completely clear that I fully agree with, associate myself with, and support Roger L. Simon’s and Andrew Breitbart’s decision to skip CPAC this year due to the “get back in the closet” status accorded GOProud.
Having looked at some of the comments already posted, I want to preemptively respond to some of the arguments already coming up.
- No, I don’t consider “GOProud members can attend but GOProud can’t sponsor” as adequately inclusive.
- I don’t consider homosexuality as a “sexual perversion.” All evidence suggests that sexual orientation is a spectrum of behaviors, and that sexual behavior between members of the same sex is common among many species. Frankly, if God disapproves of homosexuality, why’d It make queer penguins? Arguments based on the notion that homosexuality is perverse should be taken down the hall, I’m not interested.
- Yes, I do think the increasingly authoritarian, cynical cronyism — hell, frank Perónismo fascism — of the current administration is the most important problem for conservatives and libertarians to confront. For that reason if no other, I’d oppose this divisive and counter-productive position.
Did you object to “the divisive and counter-productive position” of including GOProud when they attacked social conservative organizations and leaders who did not toe the GOProud line?
Did you support the social conservative organizations who skipped last years CPAC because of GOProud and their attacks upon conservatives who have been fighting against big government for years – in the case of the Heritage Foundation – before Reagan?
As to your statement that gay humans are the same as gay penquins, I will let you speak for yourself.
As to what God intended, I will take His word for it and not rely upon your interpretation of flightless bird behavior.
A “heads up” – the same anti-gay people – Kipling and et al – on this forum have expressed their viewpoint (most of it honestly quite disgusting) on two other forums:
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/07/30/roger-l-simon-backs-breitbart-on-goproud-v-cpac/#comment-78144
and also:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/conservatives-and-gay-marriage-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/?singlepage=true
You will see the same arguments (if one assumes that calling gays deviants and perverts is an argument) on the other postings.
I encourage you to wander over there and read some of the brilliant replies by conservatives who aren’t anti-gay.
My hat is off to Charlie Martin.
Thank you!
A “heads up” – the same anti-gay people who are arguing (if you assume that calling gays deviants and misguided sexual miscreants is an argument) on this forum have presented their views on two other PJMedia forums.
I recommend that you go there! And read some inspired and brilliant replies from conservatives who have already addressed these same arguments in spite of being savaged – and more than a little disgusted – by these folks.
Here’s the links:
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/07/30/roger-l-simon-backs-breitbart-on-goproud-v-cpac/#comment-78144
and here:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/conservatives-and-gay-marriage-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/?singlepage=true
My hat is off to Green and Simon.
Great post, Charlie.
I’ve always been a bisexual since I was young enough to be ‘attracted’ to someone. Bisexuals get even more of a stigma because straights think we are “just experimenting” and gays think “we just can’t make up our mind”. lol
Anyway, I adore Roger and you too!
=0)
“Frankly, if God disapproves of homosexuality, why’d It make queer penguins?”
The really really funny thing about the item you chose to make your point with, has already been debunked.
While it is true that two male penguins will become close friends, and one will enact the side of being the female. It is for the purpose of keeping their child rearing skills up to date, and take off the friction of there not being enough females for all the males. The moment there are free females, the males break up and find a mate, one they can actually procreate with.
Those that have no actual facts backing their claims frequently end up in your position, and I doubt it is because you are ignorant of the truth, it is far more likely that you were just hoping the progressive media did a great job of keeping the truth from us peons who need to get in the back of line in order to allow you to cater to the new cool kids in class.
If the only aspect to conservatism you care about is fiscal responsibility, go make your own group, maybe call it the, “I got mine, I plan to keep it, but yours is negotiable action committee”. Sounds about right for what I see as those who are only here for the fiscal conservative argument of keeping uncle sam from taking more from their pockets than it already does. When the emergency is over, feel free to join all your new friends in going back to voting for the democrats, we already know almost all the new fiscal conservatives you want to displace socons with are going to do it, I will not find any great loss to seeing you go.
Certain hormones make us male and female (all fetuses are essentially female in the beginning until hormones determine sex). Sometimes those hormones make a wrong turn.
Yes, GOD MAKES MISTAKES.
And, give me a break about ‘hetero’ being the end all be all. Some of the creepiest, sickest, most perverted freaks are ‘hetero’.
And, fuddamore, what about plants that can pollinate themselves?
What about humans who are born with both sex organs?
What about sea creatures including sea stars, sea anemones, and sea sponges who can self-propagate?
The dude abides!
I am totally lost. Your argument is? That what works for different species in keeping them thriving in nature is an argument for homosexual no hope of ever producing offspring lifestyles in human societies? Scientifically illiterate are you? I see your point with hermaphrodites, but that is such a small number of people that simply allowing them to hook up and marry with who ever they can find attracted to themselves would have no further repercussions on society. Unless of course it is hereditary, is it? Here I am scientifically illiterate on something so soon after accusing you of it.
Our society should promote a culture of life, what promotes life is same sex relationships, particularly the committed lifelong family raising kind. It is what makes it thrive, as compared to die out and no longer exist. Sure, there will be those who cannot contribute to that next generation, but we certainly should not be celebrating that fact and enticing those who would contribute to deciding not to.
what promotes life is strike this > same opposite sex relationships
Man, wonder if that was a Freudian slip.
So your point is that homosexual humans are just the same a sea stars and other lower life forms. I believe that homosexuality is wrong but I do not think they are lower life forms. You need to seriously consider what you are saying.
Point #1: the sex in human beings is determined by the Y-chromosome: have it -> male, don’t have it -> female. What’s the big fuss?
Point #2: Plants and animals are not moral agents, so whatever happens in nature stays in nature. Human beings, on the other hand, are moral agents. What are you trying to accomplish by appealing to nature, that “X is OK because that’s what sharks/spiders/penguins do”? You see cannibalism, forced copulence, killing, homosexual acts and what not in nature. Maybe we should embrace all of this, because it’s the call of nature. NOT.
Point #3: Because heteros do evil, homosexuality is OK? This is just a non-sequitur. You can condemn act done by heteros, whether its theft, murder, rape or what have you. But what bearing does it have to the question of homosexuality?
Conservatives have much bigger fish to fry. Our country is in the midst of a fiscal disaster right now! We must defeat Obama and the Progressives in the Senate. CPAC needs to realign its priorities. This is no time to reject any real allies to our cause.
Did you take the same position when GOProud attacked social conservative groups and their leadership? Did we have bigger fish to fry when the homosexual advocacy group was invited to CPAC and that led to long time sponsors being alienated?
I think this all comes down to a matter of priorities. I can tell you beyond a reasonable doubt that the alienation of Andrew Breitbart and Roger Simon is a huge blow to the CPAC cause. If your SOCON priorities are going to overwhelm your desire to defeat the Progressive movement, then so be it. We may still win, but we will be severely weakened by your absence from our alliance. I pray for your forebearance.
Earlier this year both Breitbart and Simons decried social conservative organizations who skipped CPAC due to the inclusion of GOProud. They bemoaned the inability to get along. Now they not only skip CPAC but call for a boycott because GOProud is not allowed to sponsor the event. GOProud has not been banned. It has not been kicked out. Yet, Breitbart and Simons would jeopardize the conservative movement in a vain attempt to make sure everyone supports the homosexual agenda. And, somehow I and other social conservatives are to blame.
Conservatism is much more than Breitbart and Simons. It existed long before their arrival on the scene and it will proceed just fine without them.
Please note the Breitbart, Simons, and even GOProud have not been banned from the event. They are choosing to ban themselves because CPAC will not support their collectivist mindset. I guess individualism and freedom is okay unless it goes against what they like.
Breitbart and Simon both are true conservative converts from a Progressive culture that has many homosexual members who are extremely rich and influential. Some of the latter would accept FICON principles if they were not completely shunned by SOCONs. I understand the SOCON position well and realize that it would make for an extremely uneasy alliance. The Progressives are doing their best to emphasize and exploit this division.
this is true– we must first revive our economic freedom in order to reestablish political freedom (which if left alone whilst the bickering occurs will render us all slaves to the hell on earth known as totalitarianism– and we all know what happens to gays and out of favor factions of christianity under this enterprise)
“I don’t consider homosexuality as a “sexual perversion.” All evidence suggests that sexual orientation is a spectrum of behaviors, and that sexual behavior between members of the same sex is common among many species. Frankly, if God disapproves of homosexuality, why’d It make queer penguins? Arguments based on the notion that homosexuality is perverse should be taken down the hall, I’m not interested.”
Okay, let’s just say that it is not the usual function of males and females – okay?
Strange argument! Why did God make humans that can think? I’d say that maybe he left out the penquins, heh?.
Oh well, I don’t think that CPAC should have ommited the Gay Republicans but your arguments are foolish.
Don’t forget, why did God make some species both male and female, able to procreate on their own? I’m not really sure I want to hear you arguments for that though…
Yes Charlie is not a thinker. Just strongly opinionated.
God also made people who are infertile, which destroys any argument that It intended all human sexual activity to be procreative.
By the way, God also made people with severe autism and schizophrenia. You could call them “perverse” because they do not behave the way normal humans do. Shall we call them sinners?
Interesting… I can’t find this subject on Brietbart’s site, but is prominent here! Why is that? Does he have more sense than you folks here to bring up such a controversial subject?
“All evidence suggests that sexual orientation is a spectrum of behaviors, and that sexual behavior between members of the same sex is common among many species.”
Do you have some standard for sexual behaviour? What is it? Because we could of course argue that we should approve of inter-species sex, pedophilia, rape etc. Because it’s just what happens in nature. What is your argument? Because if I don’t know it I cannot discuss or debunk it.
If you say that God’s will is not sufficient for the basis of morality, well, you haven’t given us your reasons for it, or even an alternative.
Should CPAC be publicly shamed for excluding some sponsor group, like … for example … GOPeta, animal rights vegan Republicans, because voting Republican doesn’t completely compensate for a main agenda contrary to established conservative positions?
Social conservatives have been asked to set aside social issues in favor promoting fiscal responsibility … Is it not fair for them to ask the same in return?
I am right there with you on this Charlie. If we are to be the big tent party, we should start acting like it. Folks like GOProud, Hillbuzz and GayPatriot have done more to open the possibility of fiscal conservatism to the gay audience and their voices should be welcomed and encouraged, not shunned!
“If we are to be the big tent party….”
CPAC is not a GOP function. Do not conflate GOP and Conservative, because the stupid GOP is anything but Conservative.
I wholeheartedly agree.
I have been a register Conservative since 1976.
I met one of my best friends, John, at church, where we ushered and cooked for the homeless together. We regularly shared pints after mass at the local taverns lining the avenues of Riverdale. I knew the man for years before he told me he was gay. Keep in mind he is an openly gay man. I never noticed; I thought he was just well dressed.
A woman, who for decades I have been introducing as my sister is an African American, bisexual living with her lesbian lover.
I did 16 years of Catholic school, the last four with the Jesuits, but the world has changed.
Love is so hard to find, and if you are lucky enough in life to love and be loved, it should be nobody else’s business but your own.
Look, I see that it’s much harder to condemn actions if you have close relatives and friends who are gay. But you did not present an argument to which we could respond.
You can love all the people as your brothers and sisters (which is the way we should live our lives), and you can still condemn their actions if they are at fault.
I agree 100%. I want nothing to do with CPAC after this awful decision.
Just learned the major points of the McConnell Compromise. Congratulations on your re-election, Mr. President, Sir. So long, Pajamas Media.
“I don’t consider homosexuality as a “sexual perversion.” All evidence suggests that sexual orientation is a spectrum of behaviors, and that sexual behavior between members of the same sex is common among many species.”
There have been 3 studies “proving” that homosexuality is not a perversion, but rather, is determined at conception. Every damned one of those studies have been debunked. It is just more junk science from the Left.
Because of legal polygamy in Islamic countries, the homosexuality rate in such countries is about 25%. Not enough females to go around. In prison, homosexuality approaches 100%. Are they all just discovering they have naturally been homos all this time? Really?
Men will screw a knothole in a fence. Women will screw a bedpost. People will have sex with animals. Anything to get off, to satisfy their sexual urges, unless they are taught to control themselves. A moral society teaches its young what is a proper sexual target and what is not. We develop a “sexual radar”. The proper target is an unmarried, adult human of the opposite sex. Nothing else is appropriate. Anything else is a “perversion”.
Perverse is a human, moral concept. Human sexuality is a moral decision, nothing else. Without moral restraint, we will screw anything. And many do.
The homosexual agenda is the normalization of homosexual behavior, nothing else. They want to change the standard of appropriate sexual targets. I say no. It is perverse. They are perverts.
Am I extreme? Polygamists want their behavior normalized. Child-molesters also have their own group trying to convince society that their behavior is okay. It is the MBLA, the Man-Boy love Association. (One of their advocates was an Obama czar for awhile.) They are perverts, but they want society to change its standards. They want it normalized. How is that any different from what homosexuals are trying to do?
All perverts seek normalization of their behavior. It is stupid for society to entertain such notions.
“Because of legal polygamy in Islamic countries, the homosexuality rate in such countries is about 25%. Not enough females to go around. In prison, homosexuality approaches 100%. Are they all just discovering they have naturally been homos all this time? Really?”
So what? Are you really that interested in putting government in charge of what’s socially acceptable and what isn’t?
This is one of the things that puzzles me about Social Conservatives these days. My example is always the same: stripes and plaids. If you see someone wearing a striped coat over a plaid shirt, yes, it’s a fashion faux pas, yes it’s revolting, but no, it’s not the government’s job to make such behavior illegal. Why? Well, everyone else might object to someone dressing like that, but there’s no compelling evidence that such behavior is dangerous. Ergo, it’s not illegal, and the government can’t make it so. Same thing with gay sex. You may not like it, but it’s also none of your business. If you don’t want the government regulating your life or actions, how you have sex with your wife or when or whatever, how you raise your children or any number of other things, you have to be willing to leave people alone, even when they disagree with you, provided they don’t endanger the public safety. And no matter how many times I comment on one of these blogs, and bring this up, there’s never a coherent, intelligent answer as to what danger the supposed “gay agenda” poses to the rest of us. The best you ever get is a vague reference to the “institution of marriage” which is meaningless, and rather dumb, considering the number of *straight* celebrities who get married and divorced with blinding speed.
If you’re worried about your own relationship with your wife being damaged by two people you’ve never met having a legal document formalizing their relationship, I feel sorry for you. If you imagine that society will somehow be damaged by this, I think you’re rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Yes, I know that there are other advocacy groups for underaged or multiple marriage types. Frankly I have to say I’m ambivalent about the polygamists more than the gays, given the polly’s propensity for underaged girls. My feeling is that there should be a standard age for marriage (17 or 18 sounds about right) with it being prohibited below that, and sex of course should be outlawed with those who are underaged. We already have statutory rape laws, and ones for child molestors, and they seem for the most part adequate, though there are holes in the system. AOL had a story up this week about a guy who was convicted of Statutory Rape more than a decade ago. He’s currently listed as a sex offender, and can’t get a job in certain areas of the government etc. as a result. The kicker is that he married the “victim” who was 14 at the time, and they’ve been married for more than a decade, have several kids. He can’t coach their soccer team, that sort of thing, because of his status as a sex offender. As is often said, one size does not fit all.
But seriously, do you really want to put the government in charge of who can get married, and so forth? Perhaps at some point we could have a government auditor who could decide which parts of the Bible should be taught in Sunday School, to make sure the objectionable parts aren’t shown to the children? Once you let the camel get his nose under the edge of the tent…
Stripes and plaids do not change society. Stripes and plaids do not have future negative consequences.
This is thing that bothers me about Libertarians. They never, not once, ever agree what libertarianism is. In fact, the same person will have 50,000,000 different explanations of it depending on the time of day, what the question is, and what their current desires are. Explain again to me how libertarianism will work. Will there be any rights for large groups of people to control the society they create and build, or will it always be at the mercy of the few degenerates and thugs who are always causing their harms on a secondary and tertiary level? Well, I did not harm you, directly, so I can do as I please and you can do nothing about it.
So, go ahead and explain how the rights of the Majority can be protected in a libertarian society. If you cannot do that, then why are you even thinking we should listen to you?
Libertarians are to anarchism what liberals, progressives are to Marxism.
Study the discussions among the founders of the Libertarian Party over how to package and brand themselves as something other than anarchists. Study why they chose to infiltrate the GOP and not the democrat party. America’s anarchists are following the rebranding game just as the socialists have for a very long time in America. Just as there’s several varieties of socialists, there are several brands of anarchists. Only the libertarians of today have a problem with honesty…their founders didn’t!
“I wasn’t going to CPAC anyway..” How funny. Are we having a case of sympathetic hysteria, Charlie? Anyhow, it is always wise to do exactly what the boss does.
Why does The Tattler feel like a scene from ‘Blazing Saddles?’
Donald Johnson: I concur with Howard Johnson.
Luke Johnson: I concur with Donald Johnson.
Charlie…I’d like to make it perfectly clear that in Constitutional America I and every citizen to include the body of CPAC have a protected right to reject GOProud just as much as you have a right to endorse or belong to GOProud.
Heck, I don’t even mind if you decide to marry one or three of them and try to get pregnant but PLEASE don’t feel you or any of them have a right to infer or demand what any other person should think.
I agree Charlie.