July 30, 2011 - 5:47 pm
I cannot speak for PJM as of yet — it’s the weekend and I’m in a ferry queue in Seattle — but I had to speak out personally in immediate support of my friend Andrew Breitbart regarding GOProud. I too will not be attending CPAC next year unless the ban of this organization is lifted. Frankly I am appalled by the decision of CPAC’s new management and I hope they will rescind as soon as possible. If they don’t, I won’t be there. I urge others to deliver the same message.
Correction Request:
GOProud has not been banned from CPAC.
The American Conservative Union simply said that GOProud will not be allowed to sponsor the event. GOProud and its members were still encouraged to participate.
“As a courtesy to your organization, a previous co-sponsor of CPAC, this letter serves to inform you GOProud will not be invited to participate in a formal role for CPAC events scheduled during the 2012 election cycle.
“As always, GOProud members are welcome and encouraged to attend as individual registrants.”
GOProud was most likely, although the ACU did not say, prohibited from being a sponsor due to its attack upon social conservative organizations over the past two years. The most heinous was the attack upon Cleta Mitchell of the Heritage Foundation by Christopher Barron. The Christopher Barron who previously worked for Planned Parenthood.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/02/10/this-is-too-much-for-me/
I’m glad that someone is attempting to clarify the situation instead of trying to make political hay from it…
Well, I’m glad that someone is attempting to clarify the situation instead of taking advantage of the situation.
Thanks for the background information. For me, at least, this changes quite a bit.
I generally support GOProud, since I see the conservative side as the natural home for those groups who have been traditionally oppressed by government abuse, such as gays, Jews, and blacks. However, CPAC has a right to insist that others not make a mess of their events, and head off problems where they see them.
Kipling,
You are very much mistaken: GOProud has been banned from the conference. According to your quote, the organization will not be allowed to participate. That is a ban.
It goes on to say that Individual GOProud members can attend if they wish Apparently, the ACU does not like the GOProud but is more than happy to take its members’ money. Decide for yourself what to make of the ACU.
GOProud will not be allowed to sponsor the event. They are still invited to participate.
Kipling, your comments that go all the way through this “discussion” are enough to drive every self-respecting conservative, Republican and right-leaning Independent into the welcoming open arms of the Democratic Party. To imagine that any of us have anything in common with you, fantom, Granny Jan and and a host of other intolerant, self-satisfied, New Testament-twisting hypocrites for whom it’s your narrow pathway or the highway is sickening to a lifelong Republican who was my school district’s Youth for Nixon Chairman in 1960, 51 years ago. To think we now have to make our beds with the slimey likes you is reason enough to get a Obama 2012 bumper sticker first thing tomorrow.
But I won’t. I’ll support the Republican candidate even knowing that you’ll vote for the same man or woman as I will. But it will sicken me and every other serious-minded Republican.
I guess every big tent has its embarrassments, the ones who make the rest of us look bad, and we’ve got you and your ilk.
May the Lord who created you and every homosexual who ever lived give you the wisdom to open your pitifully closed mind and see the light of His love for all His children and not just the ones who were unfortunately born and bred just like you.
Not sure which god you worship but I am pretty sure it is not the God of Scripture. If you can show any instance where I have twisted Scripture to distort its meaning, please so so. If you can show where I contradict the New Testament, please do so.
I would also mention that the reference to Nixon does not exactly validate your conservative credentials. It was Nixon that gave us the EPA, OSHA, and a host of other agencies. It was also Nixon who elevated his own election above the law. These are not traditional conservative positions.
Thank you Sonia, perfectly said.
To MTNCOUGAR
The same offer I made to Sonia applies to you. If you can show any instance where I have twisted Scripture to distort its meaning, please do so. If you can show where I contradict the New Testament, please do so.
The Devil is certainly laughing it up while certain Christians fixate on fighting against God created homosexuals. I don’t doubt the Devil is thinking that this is a great distraction for certain Christians and lets their pride run wild.
The Devil doesn’t care if one is proud of their Ferrari or their “correct” interpretation of scripture. The point is to be sure they feel superior about something. Let them give free reign to their pride, exercise their arrogance. This is very effectively hobbling the Republican party.
To Ken C.
First, CPAC and the ACU are not fighting against homosexuals. They are not allowing GOProud to sponsor an event.
Second, homosexuality is a choice.
Third, to accurately quote and interpret Scripture is not an act of pride. Nor have I claimed superiority.
Fourth, once again a supporter of GOProud refuses to deal with the issue and instead launches a personal ad hominum attack. How about you deal with the issues previously mentioned.
Kipling – I hope you look deep into your heart my friend and on a lighter note, stay away from the shrimp and scallops.
To Ken C.
The point is not to rely solely upon my heart but upon the Word of God. My heart can be deceptive and wrong. Scripture is quite clear and never wrong.
In reference to shrimp and scallops, homosexuality was condemned both in the Old and New Testament. It cannot be equated with the dietary code practiced by the Jew in ancient Israel.
I think we fundamentally disagree about homosexuality being a choice. I’m a heterosexual male. I did not choose to be sexually attracted to women. I found them sexually attractive immediately. I was pre-wired by God to want sex with women. It’s that simple.
If you are coming from the position that gay men and women have perverted God’s plan or wiring for them, either by being mislead or by willful choice, I can see your point. But I don’t think that is reality at all.
I am Lutheran and I agree with the teachings of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) whose position you can find here: http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Social-Statements/JTF-Human-Sexuality.aspx
Ken C. -
I scanned through the statement by the ELCA. Thanks for the link.
The problem with the ELCA statement is that it is not faithful to Scripture. It quotes a lot of Scripture but it never directly deals with the passages that directly condemn homosexuality. For example, Paul in 1 Timothy 1:10 says that homosexuality is “contrary to sound doctrine.” In Romans 1:26, Paul describes homosexuality as a sign of societal decay. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 Paul says that homosexuals, among many other sins, will not inherit the kingdom of God. I could list at least a half a dozen more passages from both the Old and New Testament along these lines. The ELCA has caved to the world and jettisoned the parts of Scripture that the world finds uncomfortable.
I would rather the ELCA simply say that God was wrong in what He said about homosexuals than to try to contort Scripture to say something that it does not. The ELCA is in active rebellion against God and, if they do not return to sola scriptura, the Lord will remove His candlestick from that church and it will wither on the vine.
Now, with all of that being said, the love of Christ and his atonement is still available to all who call upon His name.
Kipling – The passages you mention in Timothy and Romans are translations dependent on the interpretation of Paul’s use of “para physin”. Usually translated as “contrary to nature”. This has been interpreted differently by different scholars. For many it meant that men and women engaged in sexual relations with members of the same gender. Others have suggested that the phrase denotes social expectations for women to be passive and not unnaturally assertive. Other interpreters have suggested that Paul was referring to same-sex relations between men and boys.
I think the uncertainty here is clear. We are not God to make judgmental statements that all same-sex relationships are sinful. Nor do we know the mind of God to say which churches are really for or against Him. You think the ELCA is against God and I think the opposite.
You think homosexuality is a choice. I do not believe it is. God made the homosexual and the heterosexual. He asks us to love all His creation.
The literal translation of the Greek word used in 1 Timothy 1:10 is “men lying with men” or “a man in bed with a man.” It is a Greek translation of the Hebrew of Leviticus 18:22; 20:13, which says “you shall not lie with a man as with a woman, for it is an abomination.”
The literal translation of Romans 1:27 is “and likewise also the males having left the natural function of the female burned in the craving of them toward one another, males with males the indecent act…”
There is no confusion. Scripture plainly condemns the practice of homosexuality.
The first sin began with Satan saying to Eve: “Did God really say that?” (Genesis 3:1) Now liberal churches seek to justify their own liberalism by saying “Did God really say that?”
The simple answer is yes, yes He did. Homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testament multiple times. The translations are clear and the words mean what they mean.
Jesus, Peter, Paul, and Jude all warned the church that false teachers would arise to distort the faith and to deceive many. We are called, in the Jude 3, to contend earnestly for the faith against the false teachers. Scripture is the standard of the Christian, not the false teachings of the ELCA.
Kipling – You are wrong. It’s an interesting fact, and I’m sure there’s a message there for us, but the first sin was putting words in God’s mouth.
When the serpent asked Eve whether God said that she could eat the fruit of any tree in the garden Eve replied that God said they could eat the fruit of any tree in the garden except the one in the middle (so far true). Then she lied saying that God said that they would die if they even touched the tree, something He did not say.
The first sin was not doubting what God said, it was ascribing to God something He did not say. But then you’re so blessed sure you know what God says that I’m sure you would never do that.
Ken C -
Yes the actual sin was when Eve went beyond what God had actually said and added her own interpretation, much like the ELCA has done in regards to homosexuality. They have taken what God has said plainly and distorted it with their own interpretation.
I am sticking with what God said – not just once but on multiple occassions.
I have quoted numerous verses in both the Old and New Testament. I used a simple Greek to English dictionary for the translation and then checked it with a commentary on the text itself. The problem is much more than the simple word translation you claim. The literal translation of Romans 1:27 is rather long and pretty direct in what it says.
Kipling – Absolute rubbish. Your pride is getting in the way of your brain. You assert that the translation is cut and dried. It is not.
The word you think is so unambiguous is arsenokoitai. It is a very rare word. Because the word is so rare, its exact meaning is hard to pin down.
Arsenokoitai is a combination of two existing words, one meaning “bed” and referring to sex, and another meaning “male.” Some scholars surmise the term has something to do with male sexual expression since no woman is mentioned.
Unfortunately, this can easily lead us astray. For example, imagine a future translator coming across the word “lady-killer” and wanting to know what it means.
A better way to understand what Paul may have meant is to look for other instances of the word in the subsequent writings of his time. This approach yields several telling facts. First, two early church writers who dealt with the subject of homosexual behavior extensively, Clement of Alexandria and John Chrysostom, never used the word in their discussions of same-sex behavior. The word shows up in their writing, but only in places where they appear to be quoting the list of sins found in 1 Corinthians 6, not in places where they discuss homosexuality. This suggests they did not believe Paul’s term referred to homosexual behavior.
A similar pattern is found in other writings of the time. There are hundreds of Greek writings from this period that refer to homosexual activity using terms other than arsenokoitai. If Paul had intended to refer generally to homosexual sex, or to one of the partners in gay-male sex, he had other commonly-used, well-known words at his disposal. He wouldn’t have had to resort to this ambiguous compound word. Apparently Paul was trying to refer to some more obscure type of behavior.
This conclusion is reinforced by a survey of the actual uses of arsenokoitai in Greek literature. Scholars have identified only 73 times this term is used in the six centuries after Paul. In virtually every instance the term appears in a list of sins (like Paul’s) without any story line or other context to shed light on its meaning. There are, however, a few helpful exceptions. In one instance, a Greek author uses the term when cataloging the sins of the Greek gods. In this context, the term is probably intended to refer to the time Zeus abducted and raped a young boy, Ganymede. Arsenokoitai is also used in an ancient legend in which the snake in the Garden of Eden is said to have become a Satanic figure named Naas. Naas uses a variety of means (including sleeping with both Adam and Eve) to gain power over and destroy them. In this story, Naas is said to have gone to Adam and had him like a boy. Naas’ sin is called arsenokoitai. These examples suggest that arsenokoitai refers to instances when one male uses his superior power or position to take sexual advantage of another.
This premise is reinforced by yet another translation technique. As noted, most of the times when arsenokoitai is used in early Greek literature, it occurs in a list of sins (just like in 1 Corinthians 6). Common experience tells us list-makers tend to group similar items together. In these lists, arsenokoitai is often placed at the end of the list of sex sins and the beginning of the list of economic sins or vice versa. For example, in 1 Corinthians 6, we find it between malakoi (which may refer to male prostitutes) and “thieves.” In I Timothy 1:10, the word appears between “fornication” and “slave traders.” This is consistent with the meaning suggested above — that arsenokoitai describes a male who aggressively takes sexual advantage of another male. Examples of this type of behavior would include a man who rapes another (as in the Sodom story or the story of Zeus and Ganymede) or a man who uses economic power to buy sex from a male prostitute who sells his body to survive.
This latter example is an especially neat fit if malakoi is understood to be a reference to the prostitute, in which case Paul’s list would include a reference both to the male prostitute (malakoi) and the man who takes advantage of the prostitute (arsenokoitai). This type of person is a close kin to the thief and the greedy — the two Greek words that most often follow arsenokoitai in the lists of sins.
A thief, a greedy person, and one who uses power to obtain sex are all seizing something that does not rightfully belong to them.
It seems then that aresenokoitai is best understood as a reference to men who force themselves sexually on others. This conclusion is consistent with the New Revised Standard Version, the English translation of the Bible often regarded as most scholarly. The New Revised Standard Version translates arsenokoitai as “sodomite.” As we know, the men of Sodom were the ultimate example of sexual aggression and oppression. Even the New International Version, a more conservative English translation, appears to have been uncomfortable translating aresenokotai as a general reference to homosexuality. Instead, in 1 Corinthians 6 they translate the term as “homosexual offender,” suggesting that to commit the sin referred to here one must use homosexuality in an aggressive or offensive way.
Given the existing state of the literary evidence, it is impossible to know what exact behavior Paul was intending to condemn. It is sufficient to note that Paul’s terminology manifestly does not address two people of the same sex who love each other dearly and live in committed relationship.
I’m quoting the research of biblical scholars who know a great deal more than I do. This information is not hard to find if your mind is open and you really are looking for the truth.
To claim that biblical evidence is clearly on your side and that my church is apostate is the height of arrogance and pride. This anti-gay sharia mindset that you and your supporters have is ruining the Republican party.
Ken C -
Or, it could mean exactly what it says it means.
Let us lay aside the “sexual expression theory” about the two men in bed together making faces at each other. We both know that is a reach, especially since there is no contextual evidence to support such usage in Scripture or other Greek writings.
As I said in the previous post, the word usage is most likely a literal Greek translation of the Hebrew injunction in Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, which says “you shall not lie with a man as with a woman, for it is an abomination.” Notice the similarities between “lying with a male” and “lie with a man.”
In first 1 Timothy 10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, homosexuality is included in a list of sins to be avoided. Romans 1:26-27 goes into more detail and indicates that homosexuality is a sign of societal decline. It reads:
“For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”
Here Paul is clearly addressing consensual homosexual activity since they burned in their lust for one another.
Other passages also condemning homosexuality include: Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:3-5, and Jude 7. The term in Galatians 5:19 is porneia – a broad term including homosexuality and other sexual sins.
As to the sharia comment, I will let it pass. I have not advocated the slaughter of gays. I am justing pointing out how an apostate church is leading people astray and distorting Scripture. You may consider it arrogance but I consider it par for the course.
Kipling – You argue like a liberal. That is, you don’t really address any point. You simply repeat yourself until you contradict yourself. You invoke Leviticus after you denigrated its relevance in an earlier comment.
I don’t doubt that you wouldn’t slaughter gays. The sharia comment applies because when people hear your words they hear the theocracy you’re itching to impose. It alienates the vast majority of the electorate and it hurts the Republican cause.
Ken C -
I have never denigrated the Leviticus passage in a previous post. If I did, then post the quote. It now appears that you are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.
I am not sure which points I left unaddressed. I think we covered the two men in bed together making faces at each other theory. The flight of fancy and rationalization you called theology did not leave much to comment on before it collapsed under its own pretension.
Since you did not accept homosexuality included in the lists of sins to avoid, I mentioned the Romans 1:26-27 passage. It is rather longer than a simple mention in a list and its meaning is just as clear.
Now you have resorted to ad hominum attacks with your sharia comment and your accusation of liberalism and arrogance. It is not arrogance to stand upon the Word of God. It is the height of arrogance to substitute a flawed interpretation for the Word of God and then call yourself a follower of God’s Word.
Kipling – You said “In reference to shrimp and scallops, homosexuality was condemned both in the Old and New Testament. It cannot be equated with the dietary code practiced by the Jew in ancient Israel.”
The dietary code is laid down in Leviticus. You pick and choose what applies. You like Leviticus when it seems to condemn homosexuality, but ignore it when it disallows shrimp.
Ken C -
You fail to draw a distinction between the dietary codes, the sacrificial / ceremonial codes, and the moral code of ancient Israel. Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial codes and dispensed with the dietary codes (Peter to the Gentiles in Acts). The moral law was never repealed or replaced with a new law.
The larger point with the passage in Leviticus is its similarity in structure and content to 1 Timothy 1:10. Scripture condemns homosexuality in both the Old and New Testament. No change there. I am not denigrating Leviticus. I am just placing it in the larger context of Scripture and the revelation of Christ.
Let’s ask what being banned or not banned amounts to:
Will GOPRoud be allowed to have a booth in the exhibitors’ hall?
Will they be speakers on any of the myriad of small workshops and panels that often have total unknowns on them?
Will they be allowed to be in bloggers’ alley?
Will they be (as they were 2 years ago the first year they were sponsors) smeared by someone speaking on the main stage?
I suggest you contact the ACU with your questions.
However, since they have not been banned, I suggest your rephrase so that the questions are worded factually and not based on your distortion of the truth.
I don’t know why these people are attacking you. What you have said is correct and I remember the bru-ha-ha over goproud attacking heritage foundation people last year. Very personal attacks. Goproud can pound sand for all I care. They seem to only be at CPAC to cause trouble.
Anyway – just my two cents.
So Chris Barron is the flinty, irritating, bad mannered bad cop to GOProud co-founder Jimm LaSalvia’s good cop.
Have any other groups been banned from CPAC because one of their staffers, founders or board members was annoying or rude?
I would not portray Mr. LaSalvia as the good cop. Read the GOProud press releases attacking Jim Demint. Go to the Big Government site and search for Bob Parks and LaSalvia and listen to him slander Liberty University without proof. Both men love the spotlight brought about by attacking social conservatives. Now it has come back to haunt them and they play the victim card.
That was somewhat non-responsive Kipling. The question was: have other groups been banned for being rude, contentious or annoying? Is Frank Gaffney banned for calling Suhail Khan a terrorist? Is Rush Limbaugh banned for making fun of Tucker Carlson or Charles Krauthhammer or the Weekly Standard or NRO or the WSJ? Are Judge Napolitano and Ron Paul banned because the young Paulistas ask Ann Coulter pointed questions or catcall Dick Cheney? Is Dick Cheney banned for supporting gay marriage? Is National Review banned for saying Ayn Rand was a fascist? Etc etc.
Or are only conservative gays (blacks? women? Puerto Ricans?) not allowed to be bad mannered and uppity?
Nice racist rant but you. Now I suggest you either show where conservatives have banned blacks, women, and Puerto Ricans or dial your rhetoric and hate back to reality.
I never said GOProud was banned for being rude, contentious, or annoying. First, because GOProud has not been banned. The ACU simply said that they were not invited to be a sponsor of the event. Second, I cannot speak for the ACU on why they chose to not allow GOProud to sponsor the event. You should write them for a response.
I hope GOProud was not allowed to sponsor the event because of there persistent attacks on other conservatives who did not bow to the homosexual agenda. I hope GOProud was not allowed to sponsor the event because they are not even a conservative organization – please see the link to their support of Reid in repealing DADT and their support of the AFL-CIO. A reasonable person can assume that they were but the ACU has not been specific.
Now, why don’t you try to deal with the issues and stop making racist rants based on your own imagination. Why don’t you address the issues raised about GOProud rather than trying to hide the issues with misinformation and baseless assertions?
As to Suhail Khan, he does have connections to terrorist organizations including the Muslim Brotherhood. If you do not want to take my word for it, do a simple search for his name on either the Big Peace site (Breitbart) or here at Pajamas Media (Simon).Both sites have articles – including video and audio – linking him to terrorist organizations.
If more conservatives have the cojones that you and Breibart do, CPAC could be looking at an all-time low attendance level. I hope that your and Breitbart’s public stands will encourage others to follow your lead.
Christopher made a big mistake, and he apologized profusely for it. But let’s not forget that his reaction, although overheated, was not entirely without provocation. Cleta Mitchell did actively campaign to kick GOProud out of CPAC as a sponsor.
According to the link in Kipling’s comment, Cleta Mitchell
worked hard to prevent same-sex marriage in Washington, DC. I would think that alone would make her unwelcome at GOProud or any other similar group. And rightly so.
While she opposes GOProud and the gay agenda, it does not make her a nasty bigot. Nor is GOProud the same as CPAC.
What exactly is “the gay agenda”?
You say those words as if there’s a long printed document somewhere detailing all the various tactics those nasty little homos have determined will be the most useful in bringing down Morality and Goodness and The American Way, much to the disgust of you and your friends, The Decent People.
The only theme or agenda I’ve ever really encountered amongst gays has been a sort of vague “please quit treating us like evil subhuman freaks.”
Frankly, if you, “The Decent People”, don’t get over your smarmy little prejudices, then I think it’s time for you to consider that conservatism isn’t a well-fitting home for y’all.
I’m a conservative, and most people whom I respect are conservatives, and none of us have ever been real enthused about the marriage of convenience which entails holding our noses and words over your smug, hateful views in exchange for your joining in the conservative vote total each election.
Sorry, I should have used the term homosexual agenda. The homosexual agenda is quite clear. It involves the mainstreaming of homosexual behavior in society, the destruction of traditional marriage (the oldest institution known to man), and the silencing of anyone who disagrees with that agenda. GOProud supported the repeal of DADT by a lame-duck Democratic Congress without any thought to the impact upon the military. GOProud supports the involvement of big government into small business through its opposition to the right to work legislation. GOProud supports the repeal of DOMA so that the acceptance of homosexual marriage can be hoisted upon all the states by out of control legislatures and courts in liberal strongholds. Am I clear on that agenda? If you doubt me, check out the GOProud website.
Now, as to your other hate inspire rant, plese tell me as a “conservative” what you wish to conserve. Obviously, it is not traditional American society. In fact you sounded mighty “progressive” in your social liberalism. Fiscal conservatism is not possible with social liberalism. My guess is that you are not conservative at all but rather a libertarian. So, please label yourself correctly. As to holding your nose, feel free to cut loose on your own at any time bub. There is a reason the libertarian party is a joke.
When any group puts their own wishes before that of everyone else, it becomes an agenda. For instance, among certain groups the “black agenda” includes slave reparations and affirmative action. In animal rights groups, this may include altering the perception of animal ownership and even, well, the legal rights of animals. The Republican agenda includes maximizing personal and corporate freedom, though that may lead to the loss of entitlements.
No group drifts white as snow. Every group has an agenda, else why organize into a group? One should not get bent out of shape because people say you have an “agenda.” Gay organizations do, and it’s more than “not being treated like freaks” – it includes legislative changes in marriage, adoption, and equal opportunity laws. Other groups with agendas include those organized around Christian values, Republicans, Democrats, Planned Parenthood, etc. etc.
I have always found that groups that are upset when it is pointed out they have an agenda have something in the background that shames them or that they are trying to hide. Or they think that when others say “agenda” it is coded doublespeak for “you are perverts” or “get back in the cotton fields” or “you’re a man-castrating b—-”. Assuming the worst of one’s opponent in these cases is foolish. Is it not better to simply ask what your opponent means?
Well, maybe not, if you have an agenda.
I do not consider homosexuals subhuman. Just someone with a perversion much like those who have sex with dogs or cattle.
As such I am very much opposed to their agenda to mainstream perversion. Likewise the perversion agenda against decent groups like the Boy Scouts of America.
Fantom, I’ve replied (down the forum) to many of your rank, appalling, disgusting, bigoted comments here.
To my chagrin.
You are a liberal mole “proving” how bigotted and narrow-minded conservatives are.
Hats off. Cleverly done.
MTNCOUGAR, I am far more conservative with a strong Libertarian bent than you will ever realize.
I am also a moral, although imperfect person.
Your aversion to bestiality is shared by me. Homosexuality is in the same category, a position not of bigotry but time tested worldwide morality.
You have yet to show a reasoned position how you can support one yet not the other. I have responded below to what that makes you, so I feel no need to trash the board up further.
Glad to know you’re no longer going to trash this forum up. I’m off, as once again the low-lifes are crawling out from under the rocks and not worth discussion.
“Frankly, if you, “The Decent People”, don’t get over your smarmy little prejudices, then I think it’s time for you to consider that conservatism isn’t a well-fitting home for y’all.”
Translation: Shut up and sit in the back of the bus. For most of my you rino’s stank up the party (no – you are NOT conservative) and told us to shut up. We took for decades. Now that we are engaged you are just heart-sick to find out that 60% percent of the country IS us. So, no. We won’t shut up and sit down. It is YOU who need to find another party (you’re spoilers for ours anyway and we don’t want ya) and that would the the dems. See if you can’t wrest it away from the marxists and make it back into the democrat party of old. At least back then both sides held different views but held the country sacred.
Many of GOPround’s own members actively campaign against gay marriage.
And the question isn’t whether Mitchell would be welcome at GOProud or not. There are plenty of people who I vehemently disagree with, but would not stoop so far as to insult based solely on that disagreement, especially those on the same side.
GOProud’s tactics look more like those of the left, including the knee-jerk accusations of bigotry. Until they find a better behavior model, they should be given wide berth.
Precisely.
In 2010 GOProud, with the assistance of Bob Parks at one of the Breitbart sites, made headlines by attacking Liberty University and making an unsubstantiated claim that Liberty was leading a boycott of CPAC because of GOProud. This past year they attacked several solid conservative organization including the Heritage Foundation. As Erick Erickson at Red State pointed out in a post at the time, GOProud does not hold conservative values across the board. Nor have they been on the front lines in most of the battles against the left. In fact they applauded Reid when he crammed through the repeal of DODT without serious consideration of its impact on the military. They sided with the AFL-CIO and the SEIU on right to work issues. They also publicly attacked Jim Demint and Tim Pawlenty. GOProud seems more intent on grabbing headlines and fundraising than actually stopping the left.
Do we really need their divisive presence at CPAC?
Yes.
I disagree.
GOProud can go be divisive at some pro-sham marriage Democrat events. Oh wait, there they’d be in harmony with their peers.
so is 2012 really the year we need to fight over social issues that are not should not be the concern of the federal government to begin with? seriously?
Actually, yes. Our fiscal irresponsibility will kill us as a nation. But so will moral rot, such as accepting sexual perversions as normal.
There are a number of sources that consider celibacy a sexual perversion.
Charlie,
Put the crack pipe down and step away from the keyboard.
Charlie, I’ll bet when you got up this morning you had no idea that this was the day you would post the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen on the Internet.
Wait! Charlie’s right. Imagine taking a life position of refusing to take water or taking a crap.
“There are a number of sources that consider celibacy a sexual perversion.”
Great. I just found out that I’m a pervert…through no fault of my own. Is it my fault that every woman I know has good taste?
I always thought that I was ugly, but Charlie has opened my eyes and I realize that I’m a pervert. Thanks, no wait, what… ?
Sexual perversion is an abnormality, a diversion from the purpose of sexual activity. For those who are with GOProud, what is your standard?
Lastly, why do you always think that opposing the homosexual agenda means also opposing gays as human beings? I’m anti-taxes, therefore I wish to lynch progressives?
The purpose of sexual activity is to satisfy the biological drive to have sex.
If you are still imagining that the purpose of sexual activity is to procreate, sorry–that ship has sailed long ago:
The marketing of the contraceptive Pill, starting in 1960, made it possible for women to have sex without conception, and without clumsy devices like condoms.
The success of in vitro fertilization (IVF), starting in 1978, made it possible for women to have procreation without sex. Now lesbian women are getting pregnant without male partners.
And it has made for some brand-new arrangements, like surrogate mothers–women hired by infertile couples to carry their fertilized egg to term, after which the woman hands over the baby to the couple.
Thanks to the Pill and IVF, the traditional link between sex and procreation has been cut. Even conservative women use birth control–I know a few myself. The Pill and IVF are here to stay, and the idea that the purpose of sex is procreation is obsolete for good.
“The purpose of sexual activity is to satisfy the biological drive to have sex.”
While I would agree this is often the motivation, I disagree that this is the purpose.
If birth control were as effective at controlling this biological and natural function of coitus, then why are we still heatedly arguing over abortion? How many of us have friends (or ourselves) with an “oops” child? Birth control is a wonderful thing, but it is not infalible.
Likewise, IVF and other ART (Assistive Reproductive Technologies) are wonderful, but we don’t live in that Brave New World, yet. In 2009 the CDC reported 4,131,019 live births, including 45,870 successful ART uses. In my cursory investigation I couldn’t find any numbers on who the recipients of the ART were, but I would wager a pay check the majority were traditionally married couples experiencing fertility problems.
In any event, at leat 99% of children result from a heterosexual coupling. While I certainly don’t discount that small minority of children brought into same-sex households, logic seems to indicate that it is in the greater interest of society to strengthen the institution that can support the 99% rather than to continue to discount the role of heterosexual sex in procration, such as many legal and societal changes in marriage have already done.
Hmmm…celibacy as a perversion… odd that you would bring that into the debate, since people are born celibate.
If someone is born of a certain sexual preference/persuasion, can it also be a perversion? Is that what you are saying?
You might want to rethink bringing that into the conversation.
“Pervert” is such a loaded word. Granting that some children are born with a bent of mind that will direct their sexual feelings towards members of the same sex, and that that is unusual, the question really must be, not is it unusual, but is there any reason for society to ostracize them or forbid them to do as they’re inclined?
Not really.
The next question is, does society have any reason to subsidize their sex lives in the hope that they’ll establish nuclear families and raise the next generation of kids? Well, hard to say. IVF etc. means that it’s not impossible, but in most cases, there won’t be any kids.
The final question is, do our differences over the answers to these first two questions trump our common interest in liberty and limited government? Think about it.
I just want to make clear that I am the real Anonymous. All previous posts listed as Anonymous are not me. I am the one who can insult and make pronouncements anonymously. The others can’t
(signed) The Real Anonymous
And there you go.
What GOProud is fighting (good for them) is this notion, still prevalent among folks like you, that homosexuality is a “perversion.”
It harms NO ONE. Including you. Gays aren’t asking you to participate in homosexuality, they’re only asking you to accept them as FULL equals in society with the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that you and I have.
Thanks to people like you, gays and lesbians lived in shame and fear. Until the late 1960s, someone who was identified as gay could lose his security clearance on that basis. He could be fired from large corporations solely because of his sexual orientation. And most of all, people like you insisted that he should be ashamed of his own behavior and his own drives. Some couldn’t take it and actually committed suicide.
THAT was the world that gays and lesbians lived in. It was wrong, it was un-American, and I’m glad that they’re finally getting their American birthright.
You can continue to believe that homosexuality or anything else is “perverted.” But I’m glad that you can’t any longer make your beliefs stick.
I don’t accept your standard for sexual conduct that everything is OK as long as “it harms no one”. Seems pretty arbitrary when you think about it further. Is necrophilia OK? Harms no one.
When we discuss the morality of homosexual acts, we are not talking about the human rights of homosexuals. All men have equal worth, and nobody is discussing why gays should have their right to life rescinded or something like that. I’m not even disputing that maybe gays get some form of happiness from their choices, but it’s not the issue.
Actually, they are heartily being wished right back in that closet because of their own actions. People are sick to death of gays and gay issues. They’ve destroyed San Francisco where people can’t even take their kids to the park because gay men are naked and having sex out in the open. It’s disgusting! A hetero would be arrested for indecent exposure – but not the gays! They’re special!
Back when I was a kid all they wanted was exceptance – now their agenda is being taught to preschoolers. Are you kidding me? Now it’s not acceptance that enough – no, now they want to be celebrated! Civil rights weren’t enough – now they just have to have “marriage!”
Basically, what they want is the ability to sue those nasty old churches for reading out of that nasty old bible that hurt their precious little feelings.
No – they don’t want acceptance – they want stompt our sensibilities right into the ground and then they want to spit in our faces. They can just stuff it for all I care!
In early 19th century New England, it was commonplace for girls to marry as young as 12. Check it out for yourself.
Was *that* a perversion? By today’s standards, it would be called “statutory rape.” Somehow America survived it.
Even today young girls are permitted to marry at 14 in some states. I guess we’ve not progressed enough eh?
Check that out.
Tune in the History Channel sometime. There are many individuals who believe that most of human history has been directed by space-aliens, that Nostradomus accurately predicted the future, and that BigFoot is probably out back behind a tree right now. The tell-tale signature of GOProud is that they expect members of any organization who oppose the homo agenda to leave, and allow GOProud to take control. Conservative/Rightwing individuals would put up with things as long as they felt they could and then leave to form their own group. It is characteristic of Leftists to attempt to destroy their opponents rather than compete with them in the political or social arenas.
It is characteristic of leftists to exclude, bully and marginalize anyone who doesn’t agree with their agenda and viewpoint.
Religious right-wing conservatives are doing a stellar job of doing the same thing.
So get OUT OF MY PARTY. You hijacked it 30 years ago (yes I’m old enough to remember when the Christian Right wasn’t bossing the rest of us around) and you don’t belong here.
In case you feel that I’M being exclusionist, you are right. Government should not be in the business of legislating morality based on the viewpoint of the religious right. It should also not be in the business of legislating morality based on the agenda of socialist leftists.
Did I mention? GET OUT OF MY PARTY.
For the “born again bigots” who think this is THEIR party – find a good church and stay put. If you can’t persuade people to adhere to your idea of morality through the religious context of the church, then the church is an utter and complete and sad failure.
Well said MTNCOUGAR. The religious right has hobbled the Republican party in the extreme. A long time Jewish friend of mine has lamented many times that though he’s a conservative, in government and fiscal matters, there’s no place for him in today’s Republican party.
The current Republican melody is decidedly anti-abortion and anti-gay. It’s only the orchestration in the bass that’s for smaller government, self reliance, and fiscal conservatism. This dissonance is why many folks come for a listen and then run away from the Republican tune.
It’s not your party. You are a democrat who wants to split our party. You are FREE to leave. Thank you.
lolly – You are so wrong. Attitudes like yours are exactly what I’m talking about. You are fixated on a couple issues, personal liberty and freedom not being among them.
Sorry – they are intertwined. Letting liberals define morality (if it feels good do it) has allowed them to tell us what toilets to use and now what lightbulbs we can use. Currently they have decided that it is in our childrens best interest to learn about anal sex and fisting while putting a condom on a cucumber. That is not my idea of liberty and personal freedom. That is my idea of a nightmare of tyranny and slavery since I have no say in the matter and can be arrested for protesting.
Working with gay people in coalitions and leaving them alone in their private lives and granting them equal legal rights and/or equal individual liberty does not necessitate thinking that they are normal or your moral equals (or inferiors or superiors).
One can work with atheists, fundamentalists, Zorastrians, vegans, celibates, addicts, dumb people, sloppy people, smelly people, etc etc and respect their rights without having to think their ways are as good as yours.
This is not the time to fight over them no but ignoring them is exactly what the propenents of that agenda want.
Not fighting over it is not the same as ignoring it which is really what most who quibble over it want.
“Just ignore it.” “Now is not the time.” “Next election cycle we’ll deal with this.”
When in reality the opposition won’t ignore it nor will they let the time when their agenda is not in the spotlight pass.
And next election cycle would be their deadline.
I’ll back up CPAC. Thus far the presence of GOPROUD has been serving to make social conservatives out to be bad guys. Well it takes more than fiscal conservatism to make your conservative.
But apparently it does not take much to make “conservatives” crow the same talking points as liberals when it comes to homosexuals.
Krykee doodle, Roger.
This is an in-house argument. Your boycott is self-defeating a non-essential. Focus on the true opponent, soldier, or the essentials will be lost.
Public in-fighting serves only to divide conservative efforts for improvement. Keep in mind that Obama and the Democrats are the enemy. And that’s not because of who they are, it’s because of what they’re doing to our nation.
Good for you and others that make the same choice. There are plenty of us out here that can’t even fathom the reasons behind excluding an organization such as this. This is how change starts.
The thing with Cleta Mitchell is this. If you believe that marriage is a religous vow and don’t want gays to be able to do the “M” word is one thing. Its a view I personally disagree with, but its a valid view in my book. But when you go beyond that to not allowing people through the door (ala Cleta Mitchell), you’re stepping into bigot territory.
Except for freedom of association and the corresponding freedom to not associate.
You are really demonstrating some religious bigotry here.
Yes, Kipling – the “freedom to associate” was practiced nicely by many self-righteous Pharisees in Jesus’ time. Also practiced nicely by many white people during the days of “no blacks allowed” in segregated restaurants and schools.
Nice ad hominum attack. Your failure to deal with the issues and respond intelligently is indicative or your bankrupt views. Now you charge those who dare exercise their first amendment rights with racism. Pretty strong terms considering all you have is hate to offer.
“The ‘M’ word.” Ha ha. That right there shows how unserious you are about the issue of using the government hammer to force people to pretend that sham marriages are the same as real ones. Wake up. The bigot is you.
Another thing you’re wrong about is your assumption that “gays” can’t marry. First of all, “gay” is a politics and a life style, not a same-sex sexual preference. There’s already the word “homosexual” for that. Secondly, any homosexual can marry just as any heterosexual can. Duh.
Gay = Homosexual. The definition in the 70′s, the 80′s, the 90′s, and the aught’s. to my knowledge gays can only legally marry in a few states? You are throwing too much fluff around.
CPAC should be big enough to embrace GOPROUD unless they are afraid of their own mental prowess. Let’s not be like the dems and try and suppress dissent within the ranks.
Gays should be allowed to marry.
If a homosexual man wants to marry a homosexual woman, who am I to stop them?
There are many uneducated people like you who spout words that you do not understand. Bigot seems to be a pretty frequent one. It requires irrationality.
Side one. Reviews 5000 years or more of human cultures and has learned that tolerating gay lifestyles leads societies into decay. They have watched what societies happens in societies for years, they see where societies have made minor changes, watched what happens, and came to the conclusion to not tolerate gay lifestyles. They saw that gay lifestyle tolerating societies were those which decayed and no longer exist.
Side two. Looks at 5000 years of human cultures and shrugs their shoulders. Moving on, they have feelings, and it seems to them that gays are unfairly targeted for persecution. They do not care what happens to society on the whole, as is evidenced by their lack of regard to why gay lifestyles are persecuted throughout the world and history. Instead, they irrationally decide that gays should be celebrated as much as healthy married couples raising the next generation. While they are at it, they begin to persecute those who hold the traditional values that have worked for thousands of years and never been refuted.
So, who is the bigot bigot?
The worst part about this is that the ACU couldn’t bring itself to ban David Horowitz, who at the last CPAC accused Grover Norquist of all people of being in cahoots with the Muslim Brotherhood. Remember that? CRAZY.
Go to Big Peace, a Breitbart website, and search for “Suhail Khan.” They did a series of articles on the connection between Grover Norquist, Suhail Khan (board member of the ACU), and the Muslim Brotherhood. They had actual video and audio of Khan defending the Muslim Brotherhood. Roger Kimball at Pajamas Media has also discussed the issue with Khan.
Horowitz is on the money and Breitbart and Pajamas Media support his contention.
Kipling I have listened to Suhail Khan grilled on Sean Hannity’s radio show (along with Gaffney I believe on the same show). It seems to me that you are a sloppy and therefore dishonest writer, probably because you are a sloppy and careless and dishonest (maybe unintentionally) thinker. I have not read the articles to which you refer, but from Hannity radio I got the sense that the “connection” is that Suhail Khan’s parents have served on boards of non-profits and have similar associations with people who have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. I suspect LOTS of people here have a “connection” to a rapist, thief, Democratic politician, etc etc if we want to say one’s moral virtue depends on that of people your sister went to school with or your parents went to church with.
While that doesn’t make me comfortable with Moslems, that also isn’t what you are implying, namely that Suhail Khan and Grover Norquist are Manchurian sleeper Islamofascists.
This seems to me similar to your opening post above where you say Roger Simon is factually incorrect because GOProud is not “banned” but simply disinvited from continuing to sponsor. But then when I ask you about specific practical metrics that would help define what “banning” means, you tell me you don’t know and I should ask ACU (the CPAC organizer).
It depends on what the meaning of “is” is, huh?
You offer a lot of commentary considering that you have not looked at the evidence I pointed out to you. I did not mention Hannity and I am unware of the interview he did. I did point you to the connections posted at Big Peace (a Breitbart site) and by Roger Kimball here at Pajamas Media. When you take a look at those pieces, we can talk until then you are just babbling. Why are you afraid to go and look at the sources? Why are you afraid of the articles published by the very people who you now defend over GOProud?
As to the questions you asked earlier, I cannot answer for the ACU. I do not know what the answers are so you will have to go to them to find it out. All I can tell you is that, according to the letter the ACU sent to GOProud, GOProud will not be allowed to sponsor CPAC. Requests for additional information should be sent to the ACU instead of made up by you or Mr. Simon.
No Kipling you remain dishonest, from your cowardly hiding behind a fake screen name to your oily and evasive replies. This violate the ten commandments, a far more serious offense than having sex with someone of the same gender.
Perhaps you are the ignorant babbler since as you say you are unfamiliar with Khan’s interrogation on a radio show millions did hear. As I said your use of the word “connections” to establish guilt by association is suspect since you have no credibility, established by your contradictory assertion that GOProud is not banned from CPAC while simultaneously admitting that you do not know if they are permitted to rent a booth, speak on panels etc.
You’re toast. Smug, pretentious, oily dishonest toast, but toast. If there is a good argument against GOProud or the gays, it best be made by someone else who is not an obvious liar and weasel.
Bruce -
Bold words from a man too afraid to read what Big Peace and Pajamas Media has to say about Suhail Khan and his “connections” to the Muslim Brotherhood.
I am curious why you are so interested in my real name. Do you have a problem with Zombie and Buzzsawmonkey using a screen name? Do you have a problem with the contributors at the Big sites with Andrew Breitbart using screen names? Why so interested in mine? It does not change the validity of what I say. Or, is there some veiled threat?
As to my being toast, you have yet to challenge anything I have said. You major (pun intended) in ad hominum attacks. The whole thread is littered with your hate and anger. You make racist rants without proof and then abandon the discussion when called for proof. You make assertions without any foundation in truth and then complain when I honestly admit that you will have to ask others to answer for themselves. Your recent complaint is that I don’t follow Hanity’s radio show on a regular basis. Yet, when I point you to sources on the very sites you hope to defend, you are too afraid to honestly evaluate those sources. Instead, you pontificate without first investigating. Very shabby.
Forget them, start another tradition. It’s time to start a new and I think more people will come. After the election there will be more and different ppl that will be excited to be a part of a stable but welcoming vision, we can do that and who wants to bicker about the old, of course they would be welcome
You all should create your own PAC. The “I got mine, I plan to keep it, but yours is negotiable political action committee”. Pretty much fits right in where all your new friends are. They are here to protect their wallets during the crisis, but the moment that passes, they will be right back where you should go, voting democrat. Not going to miss you.
Notice he says “protect their wallets” like it’s a bad thing.
Ah, notice that it is to protect their own wallets, and no one else’. There is no conservatism with these people. They are just doing what selfish people do when confronted with potential loss.
Conservatism fiscal responsibility is a much more far reaching argument than keep your hands out of my wallet. The moment the pendulum swings, all these new friends of yours will be back to voting for the person promising them the most goodies from other peoples pockets.
Astonerii. Your earlier post seems to have disappeared. In it you said something quite profound and thought provoking. That this segment of our population, 1-2% at best, has been able to be a political force that has managed to alter a 5000 year old tradition (marriage) and in fact a law (DOMA) and is currently affecting our culture in the same way, ala teaching our young (and very young at that, kindergarteners) that homosexuality is normal and that anything less that belief is almost criminal. This was accomplished all based on sexual proclivity. Incredible and frightening.
Why do we need to know what someone’s sexual preference is in order to interact with them. I have never seen a parade celebrating heterosexuality. And whenever I see a “gay pride” parade, all that I can think of is “Look at me, I have anal sex”. Once again victimology pervades and transcends all common sense even in conservative circles as evidenced by this column.
Are they proud of being gay or are they proud of being Republicans or both?
There has always been a hidden agenda or a not so hidden agenda in the gay movement.
This agenda should not be supported by conservatives.
Maybe they are proud of the independence and spine it takes to be simultaneously gay and Republican (or gay and opposed to the Democrats), since around 70% or more of the gay community (probably slightly less than that for men and slightly more than that for women) are default Democrats when not activist Democrats.
I love the people who appear to be ‘without sin’ casting stones.
Wtf? Are we all living in the old testament?
Should women who have menses be banned from public too whilst ya’ll are at it?
Oy.
Better that than those who promote sin casting the stones.
So, do you believe blow-jobs and mutual masturbation are sins too between two married people?
Dang.
What a lame attempt at being provocative. Very immature.
I’m exceedingly immature and uber provocative.
What? New here?
Delia – you are about as provocative as the 101 Madonna immitators that now crowd our pop culture.
There is nothing new under the sun.
If you are deliberately trying to prevent procreation, then in a Christians eyes, yes. What part of thriving do you not understand?
Now, as to culture and society, two people doing this with the intent of not having children would not be of much benefit to society, and I would consider their marriage to be cheating, but nothing significant, as their being married and remaining married promotes the healthy for society institution of marriage. Their thwarting of the reason for marriage, not so great. Basically, they are practicing the culture of death just as much as gays are, but in a way that does not undermine the concept of a culture of life.
Turning women into brood mares is pathetic.
Welcome to 2011 and please get a vasectomy.
Delia:
Women enter marriages on their own volition. They also make love to their husbands of their own volition. They also have the power to decide if they will be pregnant. So, your argument fails. My argument is that if they care about society, the future of the nation, they will procreate at a degree that allows the society to thrive into the future, and not circumvent it. Marriage is the celebration of the prospective procreation of the next generation of your culture and the society at large. Not some little gimmick that should be granted to every minority group of sexually misguided miscreants.
I’m willing to bet that the majority of Republican couples and Republican women have used birth control, at least occasionally.
The Pill was first marketed in 1960. That’s a done deal.
And a good thing too, because both men and women are getting married at later ages.
Demanding that men and women remain virgins till marriage made some kind of sense, back when men and women were getting married young. (In early 19th century New England, girls got married as young as 12 years old. BTW, was *that* a “perversion”???)
But today, the *average* age of first marriage is the early thirties, making it much less reasonable to remain virgins all that time. Some women like Condoleeza Rice don’t marry at all. Demanding that such women remain virgins till death is totally unreasonable.
Society should not be making it easy for women to remain unmarried for such lengths of time. The society should be encouraging early marriages, where the fertility and health of the mother has better results than older women who have many miscarriages and a significantly increased chance for a baby with genetic defects. The argument about being a virgin until marriage then becomes one of benefit in forcing these women to grow up and mature at the rate they should, get married and have a family that is beneficial to society.
All those norms society had while America was building from a weak easily preyed upon nation to the greatest nation on the earth were not there just because people were evil and did not care about others.
People like you though are so self absorbed and so completely lacking of any maturity will be completely unable to take the idea that what is good for the society as a whole is also good for the individual. That is your loss, and part and parcel of the fully in view massive decay you see around you. Congratulations, your selfishness and immaturity are normal, enjoy the fruits of it.
Seriously, astenerii, your obsession with THE GOOD OF SOCIETY makes you sound like a communist.
p.s. I love how gentlemanly and balanced and reasonable people sound before being challenged in their anti-gay comments. Then out comes the truth… words like “sexually misguided miscreants,” “perverts,” etc. always tip their hand.
Yes, you are bigots.
Have I said that enough yet?
MTNCOUGAR
Took you all that time to come up with that as the response? No wonder no one gives you any credibility. I imagine you did a search on google to find words similar to mine and found some other person’s response to it?
You compare health of a society to communism do you? Way too many people on these threads are so completely ignorant that it just boggles the mind.
By the way, Bigot requires you to beligerently hold onto an opinion long after the evidence of its incorrectness has been proven. My position has been proven correct over the many centuries it has been practiced, how long has yours ever been tested and proven to work?
That is right, bigot, you have no evidence that your opinion is correct, just a gut feeling and a bunch of other peoples gut feelings. The bigot has nothing to fall back on, so they name call, right bigot MTNCOUGAR? The communist wants religion out of the society, and they have no problems with degenerate behavior, as it helps to keep them in power, right comrade MTNCOUGAR?
Evidence is something you have absoluely nothing of, and yet you call me bigot bigot?
laughing.
Menses, Old Testament?
You can’t express an opinion, apparently, different than yours unless you’ve never committed a sin?
Who is the intolerant one?
Where do you get your ideas? Cliches R Us?
Two consenting adults having sexual relations (whatever type) is not murder or molestation or a crime.
GTFO!
Delia, you think your cute and clever. Guess what? You’re not.
No but it is a sin. Like it or not. You don’t get to choose.
Thinking is a sin. Since humans are imperfect.
“Thinking is a sin”
What a strange statement! Is this complete ignorance or something else?
“Two consenting adults having sexual relations…”
Fine by me, as long as they ain’t doing it on the sidewalk where I might trip over them.
Two consenting adults having sexual relations (whatever type) is not murder or molestation or a crime.
It can still be a very bad thing. Someone who has made a pledge to be exclusive to another with the intent to raise a family and then has a consenting relationship with a co-worker inflicts real pain and does something truly evil.
Or how about this: a particular man likes to hold parties which feature anonymous anal sex with multiple partners, some of whom have girlfriends.
Would you give license to that? Or would you support finding a way to shut those parties down i.e. make it a crime?
You would support a shut-down if you believe in protecting the innocent and don’t believe in societal suicide.
And “adult” is merely a legal concept. Would talking an attractive 18-year-old into making porn films be something of which you approve or condemn?
Two consenting adults having sex could be cheating on their spouses. Also called adultery. Is that wrong?
Two consenting adults having sex with some violence added to mix. Also called sadomasochism. Is that wrong?
Your basis for sexual ethics does not hold, at least not for me.
Its membership crieria for the Tea party and the socialist-progressives.
Always seems to have a overly political asshat involved… Welcome liberal asshat! Jeez, really did not need your input!
Sure a lot of ‘anny’ cowards showing up on this topic! I’ve been a registered Republican since 1952. Come on lets hear how long you’ve been such. I’ve seen more grassroot bowel movements than you’ve had birthdays!
If you want to quote Scripture, you must first understand it and its context.
The “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” does not mean that people are not to judge sin. It meant that Jesus did not want the woman killed for her sin, espcially since it usually takes two to tango. After everyone left, Jesus told her to go forth and sin no more. He did not say: “Go forth and do whatever you want. Who am I to judge?”
Homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testament.
Is homosexuality the only thing condemned in the New Testament?
People are allowed to sin, that is their choice. Society sets up some rules to structure it fairly for all people. Penis in ass is not a natural event. One can expect to have bad things happen if one does it willfully and often. The mind, the body, the spirit will all be corrupted. Nature will deal a punishing blow to show the error. But there are worse sins out and about in the world. Just OK gay marriage and then advocate what a healthy marriage really is through the churches.
To Kipling:
Thank you. That was an illuminating exegesis, not like all the ‘so’s your old man’ stuff this has degenerated into all of a sudden.
I’m so glad I kept reading!
My pleasure. I am glad you continued reading.
Suzanne, if someone called your son, your daughter, your friends “miguided perverted miscreants” and such, you would likely feel obliged to toss a few appropriate insults their way as well. Many of us here have daughters, sons, and friends who are gay. Civil discourse isn’t possible when it’s not embraced by both parties. I’m pleased that your hero, Kipling, has managed to present his views without using such language, but he is the exception. And he is nevertheless a Christian bigot who is justifying legally treating gay people unfairly by quoting scriptures about how sinful it is. Even Satan quoted scripture – that does not mean his interpretation is accurate or appropriate.
If I have distorted Scripture or taken it out of context, please point it out. If I what I have stated contradicts the New Testament, please show me where. Otherwise, you are just making baseless allegations.
Kipling, arguing scripture with you will not help you. I spent four years in a Bible College and spent way too much of my life doing that. It did occur to me in my late 30′s that if we were going to justify treating a group of people in this country unfairly, that one should be very, very sure of “what God said.”
I spent years and considerable time studying the original Hebrew and Greek and translation principles for that reason. Unless you spend equal time with the (shocking) possibility “Is it possible we have gotten this wrong?” Biblical discussions are of no help.
I have a suggestion. Spend at least as much time as you have spent on this forum reading through some solid, credible theological writings that disagree with your interpretation of scripture. Then maybe you’ll experience an interesting new dynamic as a Christian – open mindedness.
MTNCOUGAR -
In other words, you cannot prove anything you claim.
Please bear in mind that the only thing that is truly open to all it receives is a sewer.
Laughing again. You are as shut down as every self-righteous, misguided religious holier-than-thou priest, preacher, and “in the name of God” devotee of “scripture” I’ve ever met. And I know quite a few.
There is no use talking to a peraon who thinks being open-minded is similar to an open sewer.
More insults and empty words but still no proof or even an attempt to prove your contentions.
Go live in your own relativism zone sister.
Just because no one’s perfect does not mean we must remain silent to deviancy.
Sounds like it would be the ‘basis’ for the Tea Party and GOProud to formally form their own party in America. The Tea party and GOProud aren’t going to grow their ranks from the Traditional Americans of the GOP, nor likely to grow their ranks from to many of the Traditional Americans Democrat Party.
I would never attempt to deny anybody from forming their own official parties on the basis of their belief systems, but I do reject the idea that they should have any right to disrupt the core beliefs of any Traditional American values party.
Kick the Socialists-progressives out of the Democrat Party and run through their own party.
Kick the Libertarians out of the GOP and run on through their own party!
Kick the Tea Party out of the GOP and run through their own party.
Now, I don’t have a clue if the GOProud folks are a fit for the Tea party and if not, then form their own party and run for whatever they wish for through that party.
Lets get back to governing on behalf of the majority of the nation rather than governing on behalf of minority special interests and calling it governing on behalf of the nation.
Very sensible post.
Catering to minority interests really does befuddle the whole political platform.
Be divided and be conquered by evil Progressives. Thanks but no thanks!
Do you have TPDS? That would be Tea Party Derangement Syndrome.
You work them into every topic. You need a checkup.
henry…on the other hand, what is the clinical diagnosis for one who has the compulsive disorder of obsession of ‘hate’ for Obama…or anybody? Oh, silly me! I gave you the answer! Lucky you! You’d never known the correct answer otherwise.
I couldn’t care less what your opinion is of ‘my’ opinion! I’m sure there are some somewhere in the Tea Party who are rational people but durn do they hide good. Our community Tea Party just shut down (three Democrats… again, 2 Independents and 7 Republicans) and three more we know of are in the process of doing the same…and we’re in the deep South.
CPAC has every right to say who can sponsor the event. Lots of misinformation going on here.
Wow, anonymous “Kipling,” you sure are posting a lot about this. What’s the deal? Folks are going to think you’re a closet case. Or are you just bigoted?
No, just a common thread among the Hollywood elite. It is done without explanation, but is done with their own justification (usually part of the feel good society) – usually some secular mumbo-jumbo… That’s alright, at least they have picked up some beliefs from their Hollywood brethren.
Kipling and astenorii have posted some of the most intelligent and conservative comments of any in this thread. It’s a pity that there are not more people reading them who have the wisdom and humility to learn from what they say.
I am posting to correct the distortions put forward by Pajamas Media. Mr. Simon and others have used phrases such as “banned,” “given the boot,” and “barred.” None of these are true. The American Conservative Union simply said that GOProud will not be allowed to sponsor the event. Surely, a private organization can determine who sponsors their events.
Earlier this year Mr. Simon and Mr. Breitbart deride social conservative organization that skipped CPAC. Now Mr. Simon calls for a boycott after distorting what the ACU actually said and did.
I challenge Mr. Simon and Pajamas Media to post the actual letter sent by the ACU to GOProud. They report you decide kinda thing. Let us once and for all “pull off the disguises of cunning vanity and affectations.”
Kipling again you posit a false dichotomy, a typical logical fallacy one expects to see on MSNBC, not PajamasMedia.
Of course ACU can decide who attends and who sponsors. And those who have given ACU money and attended CPAC or spoken there etc can all decide to boycott them and publicly criticize them for whom they let in and/or who they refuse.
Freedom of speech and (dis)association is for everyone.
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. There is no false dichotomy.
Mr. Simon distorted the action taken by the ACU.
Mr. Simon and Mr. Breitbart publicly deride social conservative groups who skipped CPAC last year over the inclusion of GOProud. They complained about how their actions jeopardized the conservative movement and the need to defeat Obama. Now, with the exclusion of GOProud, Mr. Simon and Mr. Breitbart adopt the same tactics they once denounced. Mr. Simon even ups the ante by calling for a boycott. No false dichotomy but a lot of hypocrisy on the part of Mr. Simon and Mr. Breitbart.
I never said that Mr. Simon and Mr. Breitbart could not condemn or even boycott CPAC and the action taken by the ACU. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy and the lies. And I am glad to do so.
Apparently I read better than you do my cowardly little liar, since I understand that you are caught in self-contradiction, simultaneously maintaining that you do not know if GOProud is allowed to rent a booth or will be allowed to speak on panels, but you do know that they are not banned.
Your pride in your own imagined moral and intellectual superiority keeps you from attending to your sloppy thinking.
Once again with the ad hominum attack, the empty words, and the veiled threats.
As I quoted in the original post, the ACU has simply said that GOProud will not be invited to sponsor the event. The Daily Caller has the full text of the letter so you can find it there. Perhaps, if Mr. Simon was more honest and less biased, he might also post it here. My information comes from the letter.
If you have any further questions about what the ACU will or will not allow GOProud to do, then please contact the ACU. I am not being evasive. I am simply pointing you to the source.
Wow! Can you read or not? Kipling said to post the letter and let us decide. How in the world is that deceitful? You’re a strange-bird, dude!
According to the article in this week’s Washington Blade, GOProud is also not allowed to rent a booth, which several hundred organizations with sometimes contradictory agendas have done for years.
So apparently the banning is more than just not being a sponsor and Kipling’s assertions have been false.
Fine, Mr. Simon. Glad to hear your decision. Buh bye!
“Homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testament”
Many things are condemned in the old and new testaments. There is not a single person on this thread or website that has not committed many of these sins on a daily basis, if you wish to be fundamental.
There is little mention of Homosexuality in the Bible compared to the balance of instructions left by Jesus, But the obsession with it by people today is suspect. And above all else, Christ was most angry with Hypocrites.
Jesus didn’t spend his time with the wealthy or elite, it was with prostitutes, homeless, hungry, incarcerated, basically the lower rungs of the society. It might do well to remember most of Christ’s time on earth was spent with the very people modern Christians tend to look down upon
Most modern christians don’t look down on the impoverished. There is a lot of help going on it the world with the less fortunate. Work done by Christians. How much help a person can give is only a question that can be answered by that person. Some will help too much, some will help too little. It’s still a learning experience.
Versus the secular experience.. Let the government do it for me. The non secular experience of giving is much more effective on a populace than the government or the corporate experience.
So far you’ve concluded that 1) there are many sins mentioned in the Bible 2) homosexual behaviour is one of them 3) no one person is perfectly good 4) Jesus lived with tax collectors, the homeless, the poor.
Point #1: there’s a difference between moral evil and natural evil. If you see a lame, homeless or starving person, it’s very much possible that the suffering they endure is not of their own will or choice, but is a natural evil. Prostitutes have chosen to sell their body for the pleasure of men. Prostitution is a sin, and because the person could have chosen otherwise, it’s a moral evil. Same thing with men who choose to engage in homosexual acts.
Point #2: I believe that it’s a myth that Christians look down upon people of lower classes. In the middle ages, it was the Christians who stayed behind in the cities ravaged by the plague, to take care of the weak and dying. In ancient Rome, it was common practice to leave unwanted children on the road to die, which is a form of infanticide. The Christians took care of these orphans. For the 21st century, see the movie Blind Side.
Point #3: today’s culture is very gay-friendly, to the point of being anti-Christian: if you disapprove of our lifestyle choices, you are a bigot, Neanderthal etc. What should I say to this? It’s 90% feelings, 10% argument. They have not given me good reasons to change my beliefs. I’m not a hypocrite to point out that some acts are evil, even if I’m a sinner myself.
Do both “testaments” condemn the charging of interest, making money, and entrepreneurship in general? (Even if they also contradict themselves and say positive things about them elsewhere?
Are there gay people and relationship portrayed favorably in the Hebrew bible as well? Do the Apostles represent people forming heterosexual, procreative couples in their 20s as you recommend? Should we outlaw groups of 12 single men running around and living together public speaking and providing wine for parties?
Hi Bruce,
You may not be interested, but someone might be.
God put marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and sex is a tool for creating new life. The message of the Bible is: sex is good! Go forth and multiply. Pleasure from this activity is a nice by-product, but it’s not the purpose of sex.
God forbade sex outside of marriage, so it’s wrong to hook-up and have sex, cohabitation is taking stupid risks, adultery is a biiig no no. Banning of homosexual acts is therefore also bad.
Look, if your only standard is “do what feels good”, it’s a lousy argument and a basis which does not hold under scrutiny. Better to pump up to full nihilism and claim that there is no purpose or ethics w/ regard to sex, and take whatever comes your way. You cannot bear the consequences, but it’s better to be honest than have flimsy ethics.
Hi Markus
I am willing to accept your premises that procreation and families that support procreation, and even more importantly, the education of children, are central for a good society (which is precisely why they should not be regulated by the State, which destroys institutions it touches).
That’s why I think anyone who was actually pro-family, pro-marriage, and pro-children would support extending marriage and the family to all and any gays who can be encouraged to form a child-raising gay couple. (You aren’t going to get them to form a heterosexual couple raising children with any happy outcome, because they are indeed born that way. You are just going to cause divorce and strife.)
On my BigHomo blog somewhere I have a satire of your position, and its deepest and most incisive formulators (from Leon Kass to Ann Coulter). I’m willing to accept that gays should only be allowed to marry if they are having (or adopting) and raising kids. As long as we start granting marriage licenses to heterosexual couples only if they pass a fertility test and promise to have and/or adopt kids. Else they can only be civilally unioned.
“GOProud has not been banned from CPAC.
The American Conservative Union simply said that GOProud will not be allowed to sponsor the event. GOProud and its members were still encouraged to participate.”
This does show a particular bias in your reporting if true! We could use a reasonable response regarding this… Otherwise you are perpetuating a false premise…
I’m glad that someone woke up and realized that the homosexual agenda is part of the overall progressive strategy which in part or whole seeks to both re-define and destroy the family–the basic building block of society. (Also by the way, the first social institution created by God Himself.)
There is nothing conservative about this agenda.
May I suggest that liberal-tarians who seek to change the meaning of both freedom and marriage move on down the road. If there is enough of you to create the sort of chaos that occurred at CPAC last year, surely there is enough of you to create your own event.
“Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.”
Actually gay people have always been married just as black men and women have always been the rightful owners of their own bodies and lives, and women have always had the moral right to their own productivity, and children have always had the moral right not to be molested and abused.
Cultures, governments, and laws may not recognize the married status and commitment of a gay couple, just as they did not recognize that a black person is not someone else’s property, or a woman’s farm or business or home belongs to her and not to someone who happens to marry her. But the law not recognizing a moral fact does not change the facts.
Gay marriage is not a recent invention. The word “marriage” has been used to refer to gay couples for over a hundred years (“Boston marriage”). The demand that the law recognize it simply seems new to you.
These are the facts. If you redefine marriage for this one group then you have to redefine for every group (i.e polygamy, incest, child-marriage, beastiality, etc) because you will have destroyed the one argument against them – tradition.
There is no redefinition of any word. Gays and lesbians have always been married, and even our language reflects this and has for centuries (e.g. the phrase “Boston marriage”). We are only asking the law to recognize the moral facts, as we were not redefining “person” when we ended race slavery, but just asking the law to recognize the self-ownership of non-white individuals.
The existence of problematical cases (polygamy) and the equation of unrelated disorders (bestiality) with the issue of marriage mainly tells us about the intellectual and psychological limits of those who think they are salient to the issue.
With all due respect Mr.Simon, I cannot disagree more with yourself and Breitbart. As a tolerant conservative I know that a fundamental principle of conservativism is morality in a civil society. The gay lobby has gone off the rails in it’s activism and pushing a radical gay agenda now infiltrating our schools at even the kindergarden level. If we continue the absurd “big tent” inclusivness allowing lobbies such as GoProud and Islamist radicals to become a part of our identity-we are done. THis is not conservativism. It is an attempt of inclusivness not unlike “multiculterism”which is clearly a disaster and is destroying Europe as we speak. Principles are never a matter of compromise. GoProud claims they are fiscal conservatives. Sorry sir, not enough. Go away and stay away.
The bottom line Mr. Simon is that you have gained another 20% or so that agree with you but you have also aggravated another 70 to 80% of those that read you. That is I’m sure okay with you Hollywood types (you are use to this kind of opposition).
The problem is that now you are writing for a so-called conservative site (or at least libertarian) and writing purely liberal crap. It is one thing to state your opinion and let the chips fall where they may but when you take sides such as this (and with false statements at that), you are going against the majority of those that read your site. You will discover the consequences….
Since just WHEN does one have to be a God (without sin) to point out that homosexuality is a perversion/deviancy?
OR IS RELATIVISM SUIDDENLY “HOT” AMONG CONSERVATIVES?
Oh wait…it’s the Libertarians (brothers to Left Libertarians: Anarchists) who hold to no moral standards…but that’s ok.
Oh wait! Maybe it is just the Bible…
Umm…NO.
Oh wait! Maybe it was just the Bible!
God sets final judgement.
I follow His teachings.
Its not for us to weigh sin…that is the point of instructions left by Christ.
For some reason there is overwhelming obsession with homosexuality when it consists of 1-2% of the population, and has been this way for thousands of years. Christ never specifically commented on homosexuality, and if it was this great a transgression, there would be mentioned of it.
If we wish to have a better society maybe more time spent assisting those in need would accomplish the task.
We have severe economic issues in this Nation, spending energy and efforts on such small items as a ” gay Agenda” seems counterproductive.
Well, Jesus did not specifically speak against bestiality either. So to use your logic…..
Mayhap Jesus did not speak on it, as it was well covered in Leviticus. Both homosexuality(at least man to man) and bestiality. Jesus never had a problem modifying the Old Testament, that he did not seek in favor of homosexuality is of greater insight that He was ok with Leviticus.
I’m sure that you, Brerbart, and Charlie Martin are all feeling good about you stance on this horrible right wing stance. Well, let me tell all of you that you will experience a tremendous penalty for such foolishness. I just hope that it does not lead to your collapse as a new media player.
It is okay to take stances on these subjects but NOT okay to preach as if you think you are right! After all, you are fighting several hundred years or what most people call normalcy…not to mention the religious aspect….
I prefer fiscal conservative gays over big government social conservatives.
Fiscal conservative gays fight for things regarding their private life that has no baring what so ever on my life.
Big government social conservatives are cohorts with progressives in burying the country in debt and thus are playing havoc with the economy with huge impact on my business and private life.
Have never heard of a Big Government Conservative! What the heck are you speaking of? Conservative and Big Government are contrasting adjectives…. Now you might be speaking of RINO’s, but Conservatives – no way…
George W. Bush was an example of a Big Government Conservative. He was a Conservative, but kept doing things to expand the power of the Federal Government. John McCain is another example of someone who doesn’t hesitate to let the Government “fix” a problem by expanding Government. Unfortunately, I could go on!
Free markets, free people — that’s how Republicans expand the party. But no, the Socons, like liberals, become God’s knights, using government as a sword, not a shield, to get what they want.
Look in the mirror, homophobes. There you’ll see California legislators forcing folk to be nice and moral by teaching the accomplishments of gays and lesbians in grade school. It’s what God wants.
Social conservative engineers bug the s*** out of me. Liberal social engeineer bug the f***ing s*** out of me. That’s all the difference, and you both make me sick.
Music to my ears, arhooley.
Arhooey, I just want you to know that your last sentence brought tears of appreciation to my eyes. Well said. You are likely long-gone from this forum, but if you return and read this, please consider staying active in debates on this subject.
We need to let people know that not all convservatives (or even the majority) are anti-gay.
Thanks, MTNCOUGAR. I work awfully hard to convince my liberal and moderate acquaintances to vote Republican, and it certainly doesn’t help when Michelle Bachmann states in her official capacity as a lawmaker (!!!) that the “sad lifestyle” choice of homosexuality is “part of Satan.”
Arhooley, can I buy you a beer?
Or make a T-shirt out of your “social engineers” comment?
Haha! Yes to both.
I’m always annoyed by this argument, because it’s so silly. Back in the ’60s, marriage between a man and a woman was semi-permanent, with divorces being hard to get, unless you travelled to Nevada and got “Reno-vated” with a quickie divorce. If you were Catholic, however, you could get divorced at all, and all they gave out were anullments…and then pretty much only if your last name was Kennedy. As far as the Catholic Church was concerned, my late father-in-law’s brief end-of-World-War-II marriage was still in effect more than 20 years later, long after he’d divorced the woman and married my future mother-in-law (the first wife lied about her age–she was much older than she told him–and neglected to mention a teenaged daughter). My future wife (in her 20s at the time) was the maid of honor when Joe finally got the first marriage annulled and married the woman he’d been civilly married to, and living with, for 20+ years.
So do we take the Catholic view, for the whole country? Or do the Protestants get to win out here, because the Catholics are “too moral?” Or does the law apply differently to Catholics than Protestants? If the last is true, how then do we deal with one marrying the other? What about the Muslims, do they get to apply Sharia in cases involving Muslim marriages?
My guess is that most of the people arguing that homosexual rights (or whatever you wish to call them) are deviant figure that Protestant Christian morals should be applied everywhere. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you’ve got about as much chance of getting that to happen as you have of getting Congress to start acting completely fiscally responsible, starting tomorrow. A majority of the country wouldn’t go for it, and even if they did, the courts would never stand for it anyway. So all your sanctimonious hot air is just that: hot air. It won’t do any good, it won’t change anyone’s mind, it won’t decide anything.
Takeaway question: Christian conservatives need to ask themselves, seriously, a very simple question, before they continue to take the stand that they typically espouse: If you are insistent that the government gets to dis/approve every marriage, are you then prepared for *every* stripe of political sentiment in the country to exercise this power when and if they’re in control of the government? Remember, there are militant lesbians who believe that *all* heterosexual marriage is disfunctional, by definition, because it involves a man. If the government can outlaw gay marriage because it disapproves of it, what’s to keep it from doing the same with *straight* marriage? Answers such as “there are too many of us for that” are disqualified on grounds of “might does not make right.”
Question for you? Do you believe that marriage as it has been defined for over 200 years has been wrong?
Do you believe that marriage between multiple partners should be legalized?
Do you believe in any legitimate limits to marriage?
Do you believe that marriage is a sacred event before God?
Do you think that States should control marriage?
Is marriage a Federal event?
Should all marriages be recognized by all states – ie Federalized?
Do you believe that marriage between multiple partners should be legalized?
(Answer with a question – Why not?)
Do you believe in any legitimate limits to marriage?
(Answer with a question – “legitimate” is a bit subjective is it not?)
Do you believe that marriage is a sacred event before God?
(For most its a sacred event before getting drunk and having sex.)
Do you think that States should control marriage?
(Answer with question – States of what? Alzheimer’s? Catatonic Schizophrenia?)
Is marriage a Federal event?
(Answer with a question – Like in the Rose Garden with Prez officiating?)
Should all marriages be recognized by all states – ie Federalized?
(Well of course! My marriages in KY, WA, TX (2 there) ND, MN. I really hate I can’t tell anybody with current laws.)
You asked, do I believe in multiple-partner marriage? Answer, I think it’s bad public policy to allow it. Here’s why. Right now, we have a society in which, when it comes to money, some people earn a lot and others earn but little. This we can cope with, but it’s not a wonderful thing. It would be better if our less fortunate had more skills and more earning power.
If multiple-partner marriages are legalized, this winner-take-all stuff will work its way into the marriage market as well as the dollar market. Football and [male] movie stars will have many wives; the poor and the homely will have none. Surely that would be a danger to social stability.
And then there’s the religious angle. There are religions, and not just Islam, that can be used to oppress women and children. Polygamy is the perfect context for that. But the first reason is reason enough.
Is it really good christian behavior to judge others the way social conservatives on this board does?
What planks do you have sticking out of your eyes? If you weren’t so busy throwing stones, perhaps you’d notice.
I’m more interested in his non-religious answer (since he is not religious). I just want him to commit to his beliefs…
Amen!! Recent reports of studies done by the demographers tell us very clearly that, because of this selfish position that sex is not for procreation, nations throughout Europe, and now in America, are not “replacing themselves”(This is the same one child per family dictum followed in China for decades) China has realized their terrible mistake, and are now insisting that each married couple “replace” themselves with two children. As your ethnic group, or civilization, slowly sinks from existence into the setting sun, remember those famous words “sex is not about procreation; it is for personal enjoyment, as quoted by senz54. selah
Well then you should be happy when gays have kids, which is why many of them want to be married (to protect their children). I had a boy (almost 13) with a single heterosexual woman who otherwise would have not had one before she would have been too old to do so. He’s mainly of ethnicities “you people” seem to approve of, just a little Cherokee on my side and a little Syrian on his mom’s. But mainly Scottish-French-German-Irish-English, as you no doubt think Jesus intended.
Why are you judging them for judging the behavior of others?
“Judge not lest you be judged.”
Was Jesus judging people for judging others?
Your comment is nonsensical.
You are roughly paraphrasing Matthew 7:1 but you are distorting the meaning of that verse by removing it from the context of Matthew 7:1-5. In the entire passage, which you do not quote or reference, Jesus does not prohibit believers from judging others. He tells them to not judge others hypocritically. Notice how Jesus brings the passage to a close in v. 5: “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
In Matthew 16:19 and 18:15-18, Jesus instructs believers on how to judge sin properly. Other Scriptural passages about judging sin include Galatians 6, Ephesians 5, 1 Timothy 1, 1 Timothy 5 and Titus 3.
You also reference the story of the woman caught in adultry. The story shows that Jesus did not want the woman stoned but instead wanted to exercise mercy. After the crowd had disbursed, Jesus told the woman to go forth and sin no more. He did not condone or excuse her action but judged it as sin.
Your (likely) degree in theology won’t help you here. You are utterly convinced that scripture says same-gender romantic partnerships are sinful – so much so that there is no need for you to honestly explore the original languages or get books and expose’s that clearly and carefully describe how that simply isn’t true. I attended Bible College and heard how “gay” was sinful and listened to preachers over and over again spoon-feeding us that line. If you don’t spend at least as much attention listening, reading, researching and exploring the many credible Jewish and Christian theologists who soundly disagree with the legitimacy of that interpretation of scriptures, then you are (pardon the expression) brainwashed.
The original languages are quite clear on the subject of homosexuality and its condemnation in the New Testament.
Now, if you and your social liberal friends want to disagree with the New Testament, that is fine. But don’t try to manipulate the Scriptures to mean something that is clearly not there. A key component of civil discourse is a reliance on fact not fancy.
Instead of relying on liberal distortions why don’t you get a Greek New Testament and a simple Greek dictionary and see for yourself if those words mean what they mean. I can recommend some primary sources if you would like.
Acutally, the original languages are not “quite clear” on that subject. Ancient Greek had a commonly used word for “homosexual,” which Paul did not use. Remember the Greeks? Homosexuality was not an ambiguous idea. Instead Paul used an obscure word whose meaning is (rightly) in question. Even your cherished references like Young’s translates one oft-quoted anti-gay word as “catamite” – which means literally “male temple prostitue.”
Arguing scripture isn’t productive unless you approach things with an open mind and study the “other side” carefully.
I will not discuss this further, I’m too old to arm-wrestle with self-assured close-minded religious pharisees.
MTNCOUGAR -
The term homosexual is a neutral term which simply means same-sex.
The Biblical terms used by Paul literally mean men who engage in sex with men and women who engage in sex with women. Paul was much more graphic in his description and condemnation.
There is only debate amongst those who do not accept the meaning of Scripture or who like to debate the meaining of “is”.
Riiiight. I could debate for hours the legitimacy of your assertions. As I said, it’s a waste of time and energy to get into an arm-wrestling contest with a self-assured pharisee.
Buh-bye. Your one-sided “proof” of scripture has all the unchallenged space and time you feel you need to “support” your outlook.
MTNCOUGAR -
You claim to be able to debate for hours but you have not engaged in debate yet. Debate requires the presentation of ideas and then the defense of those ideas. You have provided none of this. Instead all you have to offer are assertions that you claim to be able to back up but then you never really do back them up. Instead you engage in ad hominum attacks and more assertions.
I am sure you can go on for hours but let us not call it debate. All you seem to do is demagogue.
MTNCOUGAR -
For someone who claims to have attended a Bible College, you fail to understand who the Pharisees were and why Jesus condemned them.
Jesus did not condemn the Pharisees because they held to Scripture. He condemned them because they had moved away from Scripture and began to teach their own “interpretations” as the very Word of God. In responding to the Pharisees and their self-righteousness, Jesus often pointed them back to Scripture.
I have taken you to the Scripture. It is you who offer the interpretations that clearly contradict and subvert what the Scriptures teach. I will also point out again that all of your interpretations (read assertions) are never supported by actual evidence.
Now I am sure you will respond with more ad hominum attacks and name calling. Please try to choose a name that means what you think it means.
Being a conservative has nothing to do with your sexual orientation it’s a belief structure and way of life. GOPROUD and all its members have the same right to their political views as straight people do. The religious aspect shouldn’t hold any water here since none of us are saints and we all have our individual problems that we have to cope with, Why exclude a group of people for their sexual orientation? Are you more comfortable “condemning” those that are liberals and socialists and not understanding that there are many who aside from their sexual orientation have the same political beliefs you have?
This is a time to unite and rid ourselves of the fraud and great pretender B Hussein. Dividing our forces will not aid the obvious goal of defeating the Dems in 2012. It’s time to grow up and understand that none of us are alike and we are all different but we do have a common goal and there is no reason GOPROUD shouldn’t be a part of the team effort to take 2012 by storm.
Yes, that does apply if you don’t read or care about what the Bible says. Seems to be the way most non-believers do though so you are in the majority….
GOP is a political party, not a church.
Whenever church and state mingle, it’s ALWAYS the church that loses and becomes a corrupt tool of the state. If you want to protect Christianity, keep it apart from government.
Being ruled by Christians is good. Being rules by people who think it’s their job to make the political world their own church… not so much.
Based on your stance, I would expect you to also condemn GOProud for their attacks upon social conservatives and their beliefs. GOProud has a record of attempting to divide the conservative movement and attack those who do not kow-tow to their homosexual agenda. They have also sided with the left to promote the homosexual agenda at the expense of the conservative movement of limited government. GOProud is the one attempting to use government to promote their agenda. If you do not believe me, check out their press releases and the orginal article I referenced above.
Why is criticizing a position taken by someone who calls himself a social conservative forbidden? Are they not able to defend their own views? Who gets to decide what social conservatism is? A government agency?
Please read the entire thread. It will help keep you from making foolish statments.
No one said you cannot critize social conservatives. The original post at #28 said that people had a right to their own political views and that they should not be attacked. I responded that based upon that statement the author should also condemn GOProud for their attack on social conservatives. After all, if we are to be fair and treat everyone equally then why should GOProud be exempt from criticism? Why should GOProud be able to denounce social conservatives and then run crying and throwing a tantrum when they get criticism?
From the latest edition of “The Morning Meeting at MSM Headquarters”
http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/17600-Election-2012-The-Morning-Meeting-at-MSM-Headquarters-72111.html
__________________________________________________________________
“Good. Let’s keep plastering the Intolerant label on her. Yes, Jim?”
“Boss, we have a golden opportunity here that shouldn’t be overlooked. May I address the group?”
“The floor is yours.”
“Well, let me give you all some recent background. Last summer, the gays decided to hold HomoCon II to celebrate the tremendous amount of political power they’ve achieved based on nothing more than a sexual proclivity. At the time, lesbian Ann Coulter officially endorsed the event — unprecedented for a hard-core conservative, to be sure — followed closely by gayboy John Hawkins, one of the A-list right-wing bloggers. A few months later, when they held their big Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, the bloggers on Hot Air, Pajamas Media, and all the rest decided they didn’t want to be left in the dust and jumped aboard the gay bandwagon, heartily endorsing the attendance of the gay organization GOProud while telling a bunch of Christian groups to go take a hike.”
“Awesome!”
“Un-friggin’-believable!”
“Jesus! And now?”
“Well, what that did was knock out one of their most precious underpinnings, the ‘traditional’ in ‘traditional American values’. Remove that, and all you’re left with is ‘American values’, and that doesn’t mean squat these days. As a result, the conservative base is confused. If they can’t use the term ‘traditional American values’ anymore, what can they use? I suggest we continue to push the gay meme, and if any of the Repubs candidates disapprove, we throw events like HomoCon II and CPAC back in their faces and accuse them of being the hypocrites they are.”
__________________________________________________________________
So, to sum up, Roger Simon and the rest of the gay backers here firmly believe:
1. That it is perfectly natural for a man to put his penis up another man’s rectum.
2. That people who do this deserve an enormous amount of political power as a reward for their sexual proclivity.
3. That the fundamental purpose of right-wing blogs is to eliminate the word “traditional” in “traditional American values”.
Well done, Pajamas Media, well done.
Agreed. The homosexual movement in America is becoming stronger and bolder,continually upping the ante, wanting those who disagree with the ‘gay’ agenda be punished; with job loss, censure, fines, or jail. Canada comes to mind.
Note the rebel yell “HOMOPHOBE!!” and not the milder sounding “GAYPHOBE!!” when they assemble at protest rallies. Homosexual or sodomite are historical terms for this behavior over the past 2000 centuries, not “gay.” The language has been co-opted by activists.
It’s a common trope for anti-gay activists to decry the use the manipulation of language by homosexuals. However, the word “gay” used to mean “homosexual” has been around a long time. Cary Grant’s character uses it in the 1938 film “Bringing Up Baby” when Katherine Hepburn finds him wearing a woman’s frilly bath robe and he in exasperation screams at her “I’ve gone gay all of a sudden!”
Yawn.
Homosexual/Sodomite has been around a lot longer than 1938…and since when is Hollywood the Rosetta Stone for America? I know that all of California culture highly influences the rest of the nation…and hasn’t that worked out so well…
You don’t seem to be doing so badly in this downright mean country, downtrodden victim of intolerance that you are, scrolling past the nude photo of Arnold Swartzenegger on your blog convinced me that I needn’t waste any more of your time. C’ya
What part of “equal justice under the law” (the words engraved in stone on the west facade of the United States Supreme Court) do you not understand? As may come as news to you, “Dr.” Mercury, we live in a Constitutional republic, a democracy that in the First Amendment to the Constitution allows freedom of religion.
But that does not make the USA a theocracy. Therefore, any and all references to what the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran, the sayings of the Buddha have to say have exactly no relevance to the way our particular country is governed. If our non-theocratic legislators wish to pass same-sex marriage laws, they can and they will.
These laws do not mandate that any religious institutions solemnize these marriages. They give the state (e.g., judges and justices of the peace) the legal right to officiate at same-sex marriages. What you and your fellow intolerant co-religionists think about same sex marriage and same sex sexual behavior (which, by the way, many so-called straight men engage in with the women in their lives—yes, “Dr.” Mercury, hundreds of millions of “straight” men ask their wives and girlfriends to allow them to enter the women’s anuses because the anus is a smaller orifice than the vagina) is irrelevant to the laws of our country.
Put those facts in your pipe and smoke it, and have a really nice day.
Oh, and just in case you come back with this, we are “one nation under God,” but the United Staates Constitution trumps any specific and indeed, all specific religions every day of the week, including today, Sunday.
Just remember this: the United States is not a theocracy.
Meaghan, insofar as marriage is concerned, we have always had equal rights. A man has the right to marry a woman, a woman has the right to marry a man. 3000+ years of civilized history to base this right on. Gays are demanding a special new right. There is no need to deny this simple fact. Face it, be honest.
Where we have inequality under the law is in the field of taxation. Half pay the income taxes, some pay no income taxes, some are paid “refunds” by the tax system when they actually don’t pay anything to “refund”. Some must by law pay a higher percentage of taxes than others. Equality under the law huh?
I have no problem with gay conservatives, I welcome them for their good political judgement. I also have no problem with any organization that wants to determine who sponsors it. I also have no problem with anyone who no longer likes an organization and quits it. Just how did this all become a theological issue? And if you still feel it is a theological issue, fine, but why not call theologians in to dispute it. Now wouldn’t that be more informative and more fun than giving the libruls something to tease us about?
This comment is to correct the typos in my earlier comment. I don’t tolerate typos in my own writing any more than I tolerate bigotry.
What part of “equal justice under the law” (the words engraved in stone on the west facade of the United States Supreme Court) do you not understand? As may come as news to you, “Dr.” Mercury, we live in a Constitutional republic, a democracy that in the First Amendment to the Constitution allows freedom of religion, as well as the freedom of speech you are granted to use on this web site.
But that does not make the USA a theocracy. Therefore, any and all references to what the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran, and the sayings of the Buddha have exactly no relevance to the way our particular country is governed. If our democratically-elected, non-theocratic legislators wish to pass same-sex marriage laws, they can and they will.
These laws do not mandate that any religious institutions solemnize these marriages. They give the state (e.g., judges and justices of the peace) the legal right to officiate at same-sex marriages. What you and your fellow intolerant commenters who evoke the Bible think about same-sex marriage and same-sex sexual behavior (which, by the way, many so-called straight men engage in with the women in their lives—yes, “Dr.” Mercury, hundreds of millions of “straight” men ask their wives and girlfriends to allow them to enter the women’s anuses because the anus is a smaller orifice than the vagina) is 100% irrelevant to the laws of our country.
Put those facts in your pipe and smoke it, and have a really nice day.
An yes, I am a practicing Catholic who believes in God. I’m also an American citizen who can clearly distinguish between Church and State, which all Americans must do. If we didn’t then the religion with the most adherents could run the country according to the tenets of that religion, which, in the long run, could be Islam. So I don’t advise you to impose the Old Testament or the New Testament on any political issues in our non-theocratic nation.
Oh, and just in case you come back with this, that we are “one nation under God,” the United States Constitution trumps any specific and indeed, all specific religions every day of the week, including today, Sunday.
Just remember this: the United States is not a theocracy.
I don’t tolerate typos in my own writing any more than I tolerate bigotry.
Unless it’s bigotry in your own writing.
Well that was silly.
Judeo-Christian views form the very basis of our law and country. As is just and right. Should the moslems become the majority, sharia will be imposed.
I’m a civil engineer, but that fact has no bearing at all on my blog; So, why are we all subjected to your “attorney at law”? Are we to be intimidated? If the states have the constitutional right to officiate at, and condone. marriages, heterosexual and/or homosexual, as in the present 6 states which recognize same-sex marriages, why were each of those issues determined by the Supreme Court? Why wasn’t the Question ever put on any ballot, to be voted on by the voters of that particular state? I ask that simple question, because the pollsters have told us repeatedly that the voters in several of the states, which now recognize same-sex marriages, are overwhelmingly “opposed” to such arrangements. What say you, counselor?
Actually Ms. O’Connor the Constitution requires that gay marriages be recognized.
The Constitution (First Amendment) requires that the government not establish a state religion or religions, favoring one church or group of churches over another.
There are churches that perform and recognize gay marriages. (The Metropolitan Community Church among others.)
So by not recognizing gay marriages the government is establishing one group of religions as favored over the others.
So, Bruce, thanks for showing that an idea I’ve had for some time will be perfectly legal. As Pope of the Church of Redistribution and Sanctimony, I’ve wanted to fix the problem of class warfare. Therefore, I have declared by Papal Decree (imprimatur, nihil obstat, and ex cathedra), that the 3000-year-old act of theft, meaning defrauding or stealing the assets of others, is a moral right, not to be prohibited by law. No one should have more assets than another. Therefore, anybody who steals in the U.S. is protected by the Constitution, now isn’t that so? Thank you for correctly interpreting the First Amendment. As for the rest of you folks, shouldn’t you become members of my religion a ASAP?
Something for the outraged social cons: The issue is defeating the socialists who are strangling this country, not about what goes on in the bedroom of two consenting adults. I frankly do not care what my neighbors do as long as their bedroom activities do not involve animals or kids. Including GOProud is not any different from allowing the Log Cabin Club (look it up folks) a voice in the party. Breitbart and Simon are dead on. The Big Tent means exactly what it sounds like: there are people who you don’t agree with in the tent but the purpose is greater than your own personal view of “traditional values” (which it should be noted include slavery: see the 3/5 compromise).
Look it up, Molly. It was called the Log Cabin Republicans. My husband’s cousin was it’s leader. It rightly withered on the vine because of it’s left-wing agenda not because of its member’s sexual proclivities.
What left wing agenda did then log cabin club push?
FTR I am a married heterosexual and look to my elected officials to do a few things: lower taxes, decrease government intrusions, decrease government spending and most importantly protect and defend the constitution of the United States. Getting rid of some bloated, useless and inefficient federal and state agencies would be lovely as would more efficient running of necessary agencies. THIS is the most important issue we have today.
When it comes to personal morality I have a church that can capably and adequately address moral issues.
Log Cabin didn’t wither. The number of gay Republican groups is multiplying; GOProud didn’t replace it.
It is true GOProud is more ideologically pure (Log Cabin does have some moderates and liberals in it, as well as conservatives and libertarians).
Log Cabin just had a 3 day long national convention in Dallas in May; it’s lawsuit is what is ending DADT; it has a national dinner in DC in September.
Normally I would agree but for 2 things.
1: Ignoring is fine so long as the other side does the same (it won’t).
2: The presence of GOPROUD has served very very little but to turn conservatives against eachother.
I’d love to have more people for the cause PROVIDED they don’t try kicking others out which is what I seem to keep seeing everytime this is brought up.
A demonization of social conservatives for their views amid crowings of “I’m fiscally conservative!” which can be echoed by many a “blue dog” democrat.
“greater than my own personal view of traditional values”?
Does that also make it greater than GOPROUDs personal view of traditional values or lack thereof?
By all means let’s focus on the enemy…and minimize our chances of future headaches. That means that we don’t make 1 single issue our prime at the exclusion of all others. That would be dumb.
Why should CPAC allow any organization (such as GOProud) to be involved in organizing CPAC that (sucha s GOProud) supported repeal of DADT for the military, supports the repeal of DOMA, opposes right to work laws and engages in Left wing-type personal attacks?
Simply put, GOProud is not conservative in significant ways and thus should not be part of organizing CPAC as a group. Breitbart and Simon are wrong here.
It appears that to Mr. Simon and Mr. Breitbart, being gay means that you do not have to be conservative to call yourself a conservative.
Shocker – you do not have to be an anti-gay Christian to be a conservative. It became an extension of the Christian Right about 30 years ago (literally hijacked by a smoothly coordinated pulpit-engineered religious assualt). I was there, and I still say you have no business “policing” and blithely declaring that your idea of “conservative” as fact.
You should really read the posts before you respond. It will keep you from looking foolish.
I was responding to the initial comment at #31. That comment dealt with the support of GOProud for the repeal of DADT, for their assault on DOMA, and for their support of the AFL-CIO and the SEIU on labor issues.
Instead of addressing any of these issues and defeding GOProud and/or their stance, you immediately go to babbling about a pulpit conspiracy and other non-sense. How about you deal with the issues? How about you stop adopting the tactics of the left and trying to demonize your opponents?
Dick Cheney and Judge Napolitano and many others oppose Clinton’s DOMA. Why should anyone care about your conception of conservatism in which the federal government defines what marriage will be?
Many free market groups oppose right to work laws, which go beyond not giving unions power to coerce workers and employers and beyond even not allowing government sector unions, to actually prohibiting people from choosing to form unions and use them to bargain with employers.
DADT may be accepted by many or most conservatives, not all. Why exempting gays (and only gays) from military service is conservative is something you won’t be able to explain. Your attempt to define conservatism as a list of your articles of faith is childish tautology.
What does Traditional American Values mean..? There is no definition of this, and never has been. Native Americans living on reservations would have a very different response than yourself, as will a senior citizen or college student.
Your battle is not with anyone homosexual or the dreaded gay agenda. This is the tragedy that have vexed America for the last 90 years, the voter does not even know who or what they are actually battling.
Your battle is with Groups that control America’s banking system, and by financial extension the Political System. Taking on such meaningless issues as homosexuality is like the captain of Titanic debating what suit to wear when the ship sinks.
If we cannot figure this out, there is no hope for the Nation.
Whoooaaaa buckaroo! I took NO position on here regarding the morality or lack of morality on the homo issue! Likwise, I have NO enemies any where in the chain of banking! They take good care of a lot of money for our families and operations.
Thanks for the lame effort to declare what I’m for or against but you left yourself being a fool.
Your problem is like so many of todays generations. You have neither the knolwedge or respect of Traditional Americanism. By the way, you stepped in a big pile of dunge invoking Native Americans in a conversation with me and my family. You wouldn’t have a clue what any Native Americans perceptions may or may not be about anything.
Look it is real simple: this is a conservative organization. Being Gay may be a lot of things but it is not conservative. Being Conservative means you wish to conserve the traditional way of being. Now, being Gay may not preclude you from being an economic conservative or a conservative on Foreign Policy or a multitude of other subjects. Just like heterosexuals may not be as conservative on the abortion issue or the legalizing marijuana issue they may still believe in Capitalism and protecting our friends abroad.
Every individual is made up of many pieces in the political agendas. If you are gay, and being gay is the most important issue to you (not economics or foreign policy), if it is the most important secular factor of your being and personality then you do not belong at a Conservative Convention. I would say the same thing to all those that feel the same way about Abortion rights or animal rights or those who are members of La Raza or any race based organization. If being black or Hispanic is what defines your whole being and outlook then you are not a conservative. If it is just one small part and you can join with Conservatives on all or most other issues then welcome. Otherwise we become a group of special interests that can’t ever focus on what unites us as Conservatives. We spend all out time on what divides us.
Ione,
You state your case well. But if conserving the traditional way can be defined by conserving what I’ve been experiencing throughout most of my lifetime (60 years) then I’m against conserving it. I like the Tea Party because, for the most part, they are for a strong foreign policy and a fiscally conservative economic policy. For the most part they don’t go further than that. Those are the most important issues of our time because those are the traditional policies most under attack by the socialist (Democrat) left. These are the areas Obama seeks most to transform (undermine). Gay rights, same sex marriage, religious freedom, legalizing marijuana, etc., are all important and worthy of debate. But they are not singularly, or even collectively, vital to the security, autonomy or survival of the American people. I welcome GOProud into the fold if they can behave civilly and help us put the leftist, statists in their place.
>>Being Conservative means you wish to conserve the traditional way of being.
Ione, your definition of “conservative” is highly debatable.
Yes, the self-appointed “SHERIFFs of CONSERVATIVISM” are on a slippery slope. “Conserving tradition” could easily mean “conserving no-votes for women” or “conserving segregation for Blacks” or “conserving slavery” or “conserving child labor” … or a million other things.
Sorry, anti-gay Christians do NOT get to say what “conservative” means. I’m old enough to remember when the Christian Right did NOT own conservative politics in this country. And more’s the shame that they now think they do.
As a Conservative/Libertarian/Republican/Christian and a “gay” person (I always feel silly calling myself that), I find this discussion quite interesting but a little tedious. I agree wholeheartedly with NotaMolly (comment #30): we should all step back and take a deep breath and remember who the REAL enemies are: the communists, progressives, socialists, statists, totalitarians . . . whatever you want to call them.
Can we all just bury the hatchet on this issue and get on with the task of reclaiming our country?
And, by the way, I absolutely agree that Log Cabin is infuriating in its single-minded gay-marriage agenda. Sure, I agree that in the best of all possible worlds two people of the same gender should have the same rights as anyone else, but our country is literally being destroyed by the statists . . . and all Log Cabin cares about is gay marriage.
we should all step back and take a deep breath and remember who the REAL enemies are: the communists, progressives, socialists, statists, totalitarians . . . whatever you want to call them.
Dittos
And not to harsh on your well-said and necessary call for unity and a return to focus:
more civil marriage = more government.
["As a Conservative/Libertarian/Republican/Christian and a “gay” person..."]
Putting the “gay” aside, I’m concerned with all your ‘confusion’ of identity.
To T. T. Thomas:
Perhaps I should have referred to myself as an “open-minded freedom-lover” but this is a political discussion, so I chose political labels (albeit inadequate) to describe myself.
In any case, my identity is not confused: I happen to be a Christian, I happen to be gay, and I am a fierce defender of Liberty. The confusion is entirely in your mind.
You’re gay? Fantastic! Michelle Bachmann is from the government and she’s here to help you.
I don’t need help.
I’m not sure from your reply whether you missed the irony.
Ronald Reagan’s famous quote? “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”
And sure enough, here come the “conservatives,” bursting with pro-helpy goodness for you.
I welcome GOProud onto Conservative ground…. but not if they support unions. I especially dislike them if they support mandatory unionization of public employees. Public employees should not be allowed to unionize. Public employees work for the taxpayer… not for themselves. Unions have become too powerful and need to be taken down several notches. They are socialistic, statist, anti American, they are an arm of the Democrat Party.
Quoth Jay Leno: “Gay Unions? I didn’t even know the gays had *one* Union.”
That was an interesting charge on Mr. (?) Kipling’s part, that GOProud supports unions or the SEIU. I will have to investigate that myself this week. I am not impressed with the care with which he uses words, so I suspect it will turn out that GOProud once alligned itself with SEIU on some topic like spousal benefits for government employees.
If they actually supported public sector union imperialism I would be shocked and disappointed. Knowing the gay and straight people involved in GOProud a little I do not believe it.
The charge that GOProud wants to end DADT is another matter. I suspect they do. I don’t think conservatives have a unitary position on DADT. Personally I think DADT and many other gay issues are wedge issues that Democrats like to stretch out as long as possible, never “solving” them, so they can milk gay voters out of donations, and so they can lead Republicans into quixotic public campaigns that lose them votes.
The gay agenda also includes forcing schools to discuss homosexuality as a healthy, normal, and acceptable lifestyle in the elementary school as early as Kindergarten. They want to be yet another “protected class,” immune from all criticism and given forced entry into any and all organizations. Our Constitution provides for equal justice for all, not social justice, or special justice for minorities. You don’t change hearts and minds by being obnoxious.
All gay people do not believe in public education or anti-discrimination laws.
I believe gays should be able to start their own schools and exclude bigots. And start their own restaurants, motels etc and exclude straight people.
Fine – and since they are only 1-2% of the population let’s see how long they last.
Second – sex was never forced on me when I was a child. Why is it ok with you to force un-natural sex on babies?
TT Thomas, My post was directed to Dr.Mercury
But since you responded;
The banking system exists to serve itself, a bank cannot provide you with anything except a small slice of the return they are making with your hard earned Deposits. If you do not deposit money with them, they could care less about you. Depositors are a means to their end, period.
Please research what the Fractional reserve system is, how it operates, and why the USA Taxpayer is placed on the hook for eternity to them. The fractional reserve system must have ever larger debt in order to maintain structure, and why we are in this fix. Unless and until people see things for what they are we will never change source of our problems.
I see nothing wrong with reference to Native Americans, or senior citizens or college students. There is no Standard definition of American Traditional values and never has been. Asking 10 people what traditional values are and there will be 10 different answers. That is the basis for my statement and stand by it.
ALEX…..what planet do you come from! Certainly not Earth!
“Banks are self serving” you say? Lets assume you’re right…okay? Only a [fool] would associate with any self serving person or entity…fair statement?
How many things in your life have you been able to do or been able to acquire but through your association with a bank or credit union and their lending services? You ever participate in any banks savings instruments and did not recieve some return in the form of interest? Have you ever lost your money in a bank?
The means by which banks acquire their assest holdings does what? Leverage loans to it’s member customers..individuals and commerce?
Who does the assets of a bank belong to? The BOD’s? The employee’s? Who?
I know you’re smarter than that kind of comment!
It is an odd situation when someone has to tell you who he goes to bed with before claiming discrimination. After he tells you then he can insult you and claim preferences, which I can assure you go beyond the tiny minority of a minority that wish to get married.
Otherwise, the homosexual ought not to announce his sex practices and guess what, there isn’t even a basis for the ugly charges brought against others. But then they couldn’t work the civil rights hustle. Got to have that.
The New Republic is already announcing the “Next Great Civil Rights Fight”. Guess what, it’s trans gender rights, another beaut. It never stops, it never will. I’ll take a break to find out how I am supposed to know a person is trans gender so that I can discriminate against him. Of course this gives the left another crusade, another reason to hate others who disagree with their politics. Disgusting !
For gay readers here at PJM, don’t feel alone while reading some of the tripe in these comments. You could substitute RINO as the topic subject and get an even more unhinged response.
If one vocally supports a “live and let live” position on social issues, one is labeled a “RINO” by the bigoted. The kneejerk response is NOT indicative of the vast majority of major contributors to this site, from what I have seen.
There is ZERO reason and absolutely no moral, legal, social, or religious stance that can withstand scrutiny for picking on people for their sexual orientation. If God chose to make them and Jesus chose to love them, one would think that arrogating to themselves the position of judge, jury and executioner would be blasphemous. Finding reasons to hate and exclude is not a charitable mindset.
Patriots who oppose the small c communist assault on this country ought to banding together to salvage this land of ours. We are painted as bigots, racists, homophobes and warmongers by the other side. Moments like this fill the other side with glee.
I would rather have a million GOProud members standing with me in defiance of tyranny of leftism, than one loudmouth bigot. Call me a RINO if it pleases the small-minded, simply because I won’t march in lockstep with bigotry and hate.
Leftism is the disease that is destroying this land, but God help us if we stand by and allow their mirror image on the right to lead us.
The point that others have made, and continue to make, is that you won’t have GOProud members standing by you in defiance of the tyranny of leftism. Merely fiscal issues. On everything else they stand in defiance of you.
But go ahead, defend them.
Actually GOProud takes a conservative (as opposed to libertarian) position on foreign policy, to the degree they spell it out. I don’t think they take a position on abortion, drug legalization, pornography prohibition, etc. Their position on gay marriage is that the federal government should not get involved and it should be left up to the states.
Remember your Decalogue.
Feel free to show where the “live and let live” on social issues society has been created, nurtured, and has shown to be a great, thriving and prosperous one. You can do that, can’t you? Oh, that is right, it does not exist, if it ever existed it went the way of the dodo and a herd of lemmings.
Ignorance is bliss, is it not? Lets you go around thinking you are all superior to those evil people who worked hard to build a thriving society around which your allowed to benefit enough from you feel successful.
cf, I enjoy reading your posts…but calling Christians bigots and haters misses the point. We Christians love homosexuals and truly fear for their souls. That is why we encourage them to leave the life of sin, and live a spiritual god-filled life.
Revelations tells us that the one-world government that the Anti-Christ rules will be “socialistic” in form i.e. without God…atheistic. I am not judging homosexuals, there is no one without sin. But understand, when the final battle is fought, it will be between believers and unbelievers.
I fully expect to be called a hater and bigot by writing this post. That’s ok, for that is also part of the plan.
Good day Sir.
Let me be clear. If Christ loved the lepers and fallen women and sinners, it is not for any of His followers to slap His face and take His place as a judge of God’s children….because of color, nationality, or sexual orientation.
I believe right is right, wrong is wrong and fair is fair. If I see someone being picked on unjustly…it is my guiding principles to stand between them and that unfairness.
Picking on people is not only an ugly trait, it is a sin itself.
I don’t mete out my principles based upon how convenient they might be to my politics. And, hiding bigotry behind religion is blasphemous.
One may disagree with a political stance and not be a bigot or hater. One who IS a bigot, however, and attempts to mask that bigotry with the cloak of piety…is slime.
I know none of you personally. I’m not labeling anyone. You know your own hearts.
I refuse to side with bigots who wish nothing more than to pick on people for reasons of their birth. Born black, born gay, born Jewish, or whatever their proclivity of bigotry may be.
Picking on GOProud members because they are gay, is bigotry…purely and simply. I will stand up and be counted…even against those who are warriors against tyrannical leftism…because right is right, fair is fair, wrong is wrong.
I could take no other stance. Otherwise, I might as well be a leftist….and simply hold principles of political convenience and expediency and damn truth, honor and integrity to hell.
If one is going to quote the Bible, then pick it up and read it.
Jesus didn’t talk about homosexuality because it wasn’t an issue that was debated, Jews followed Torah, which explicitly prohibited sodomy. Christ didn’t come to abolish Jewish laws, but to fulfill them in his life, thereby becoming the spotless lamb necessary to be sacrificed for forgiveness of sins by any who asked G-d for it. It’s a choice.
The Apostle Paul was a Pharisee and a Rabbi, hand-picked by Jesus, who spoke to him on the Damascus Road, appearing in a light that blinded him and knocked him into the dust. He went on to write Romans, which supports the prohibition of homosexual behavior among G-d fearers, or (now) Christians. If there was to be any change made in specific doctrine, such as Torah “an eye for an eye,” changed to New Covenant “love your enemies,” the Bible would have said so.
As for “picked on,” how many homosexuals have been murdered in the last score of years, as compared to Christians? Homosexuals seem eager to be in everybody’s face, provoking reactions that get them headlines and accomodations in the culture. They have surrounded churches, individuals, companies with intimidation and threats. Any cultural line drawn, homosexual activists will be spilling all over it, daring anyone to stop them, shouting about civil rights, and hiring attorneys.
Knocking down cultural fences without stopping first to consider why the fences were there in the first place, has worked out so well for America, yes?
You don’t have to remain in your fallen state of ignorance. The Almighty gave some of his children more talents than you, and they invented search engines.
If you google you will find out people are killed all the time for being gay or being thought to be gay. This year a 4 year old boy was murdered by his mom’s boyfriend in the US because the killer thought he was gay. A transsexual was savagely beaten on the street in Baltimore outside a fast food eatery. Gay teens are routinely lynched in Iran. Many Arab, Asian and African countries kill gays.
A few years ago I was buying a cup of coffee at the Exxon at 22nd and M Streets NW, across the street from Harry Reid’s Ritz-Carlton condo in DC, early in the morning. In the line in front of me was an African American taxi driver and the cashier was a young African immigrant. Gay marriage was on the front page of the Washington Post. The cashier brought up the topic with the tax driver. He cackled and said in his country if they found out someone was gay, they just took them out in the country and killed them. (The tax driver was left speechless.)
Do you have a place 2 blocks from where you live where you can go as a customer and have the salespeople discuss how back home they would kill you?
Bruce Majors, I only wish you had come on this forum earlier. Who will start a sign-up list for activist-wannabes like me and FrankNS and Don’t Tread on Me etc to help each other know when the conservative homophobes are out in force so conservative NON-homophobes can try to pepper these forums with good sense?
Additionally, it is unconstitutional to separate out any class of people for ‘special rights and protection’ beyond U.S. laws that are supposed to protect us all, not the sacred cows that liberal zealotry has established.
The back pages of some homosexual magazines lists the names and addresses of people and business that readers are encouraged to write and/or call regarding their positions against the homosexual agenda. The persecution of Anita Bryant was only the beginning of such assaults on freedom of speech, another inconvenient law benefiting EVERY U.S. citizen regardless of their worldview.
In 2009, U.S. residents age 12 or older experienced approximately 20 million crimes, according to findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey.
– 78% (15.6 million) were property crimes
– 22% (4.3 million) were crimes of violence
– 1% (133,000) were personal thefts
In 2009, for every 1,000 persons age 12 or older, there occurred
–1 rape or sexual assault
–2 robberies
–3 aggravated assaults
–11 simple assaults
–5 murder victims per 100,000
re: Tommy Tee
I love how Christians can claim to “love” the people they are discriminating against.
Islamist jihadists feel exactly the same way. They LOVE the infidels (yes, they truly do) enough to conquer all nations and put everyone under “God’s law” – sharia law. According to the Koran, jihad is an act of love. Allah is merciful.
Your comparison of Christianity to islam is mistaken.
In fact, if we substitute “the homosexual” for allah in the following verse, we see the hatred and intolerance exhibited by homosexuals (towards “breeder” heterosexuals) to be quite similar to the hatred and intolerance of islam towards infidels.
Qur’an:8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”
And if we substitute “their children” for the jizya reference in the next verse, we get a sense of the homosexual agenda’s declared right to recruit other people’s five and six year old children for homosexual sex.
Qur’an:9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”
You folks share far more, in theory and execution of strategy, with the jihadis than Christians ever could.
Which might explain why there are so many homosexual rainbow flags on the palestinian or pro sharia side of any anti sharia demonstration or rally.
I admit I found that fact puzzling till I realized that the rigidly enforced segregation of the sexes in islam provide a plethora of sexual opportunities for homosexuals.
No wonder homosexuals attack Christians in their churches huh?
Oh, I see, you want to be a preacher.
Best check your tendency to make confusing allusions and categorical statements (such as replacing some words in the koran with others) to make a point.
Let’s see how that works. Let’s replace the word “Pharisee” with “Christian.”
“Alas for you Christians! You pay thithes of mint and rue and every garden herb but have no care for fairness and for the love of God. It is these you should have practiced, without neglecting the others.”
Preach on, brother. You’ll have the pews filled with smiling and nodding “hallelujah” anti-gay bigots in no time.
Ooops. I just realized that you already probably ARE a preacher.
My goodness.
I rightfully compare the hostility and intolerance of islam against non believers with the intolerance and hostility espoused repeatedly in (and outside) these forums by you and your homosexual advocates towards those who refuse to embrace your specialness. You respond by hurling the ultimate invective of the homosexual…I’m a (Christian) preacher.
Of course I am devastated by the accusation and will reexamine my beliefs so as to eliminate even the implication of my being a…preacher.
I’m kidding. I don’t care what homosexuals, busily recruiting other people’s children for sex, think of me. (Perhaps some of those preachers you so despise share my disregard)
And speaking of your recruitment of other peoples children for homosexual sex: is that good? Is it moral and righteous? Or are you, like so many other special interest groups, happy to reap the benefits of the ends justify the means strategy?
You know, like islam has been doing since mohammed’s appearance on the world stage. (Don’t forget those rainbow flags flying on the side of sharia that I mentioned above.)
And what about my “rigidly enforced segregation of the sexes in islam providing a plethora of sexual opportunities for homosexuals” suggestion?
By the way, I asked you a while back if attending the gay pride parades would be mandatory for the children of homosexual parents.
You ever gonna answer that question?
I answered your question a long time ago on another forum. I think you’re possibly a dangerous person and living in your own world. You attended a gay pride parade somewhere that offended you. I’ve attended several, and they were quite decent. I think you would relish boot-stomping those queers, maybe even killing them. Keep reading and you’ll find “kindred spirits” coming out of their caves at the end of this forum.
Actually, no you didn’t answer my take-the-kiddies-to-the-gay pride parade question. What you said was “You’ve obviously witnessed some goings-on at some kind of pride parade somewhere that you found repugnant. I’ve witnessed creepy suff at mardi gras, las vegas, the marijuana smoke-out, Woodstock… filth of the hetero kind.”
I made no mention of filth or repugnance. You made that connection. I merely asked if taking the kids to a gay pride parade (several of which you have attended and found to be quite decent) is considered a family event for the homosexual family. A question you still haven’t answered by the way.
Uh oh…I’m not a preacher but rather a dangerous person who, you think, would relish boot-stomping those homosexuals, maybe even killing them?
Ouch. You’re hurting my feelings again…
You’re kind of a nut case aren’t you? Starving for attention?
Since being gay is not perverted, there is no problem taking my children to a gay pride parade.
You like to bait people but it ends up making you look – well, sick.
Did I hurt your feelings? I called you a preacher (which you mistook as a pejorative) and also possibly dangerous.
I stand by that.
Okay.
Taking the kiddies to the gay pride parade is good. It only took two days to get an answer for that one. By the way, I never mentioned the word perverted. You did.
”Preach on, brother. You’ll have the pews filled with smiling and nodding “hallelujah” anti-gay bigots in no time. Ooops. I just realized that you already probably ARE a preacher.”
The above statement is not pejorative? Sure looks that way. But no matter.
Here’s some more baiting…
Does the state, rather than a parent, have the right to tell children as young as 5 or 6 that the homosexual lifestyle is perfectly normal?
Is it reasonable to teach children as young as 5 or 6 that gays are perverted sinners bound for hell?
I learned at that age that girls were second-class to boys since as we know, God created Adam first.
I learned at that age that black skin was “the mark of Cain.”
I say once again that you would enjoy boot-stomping gays if you thought you could get away with it.
What’s your reply?
Never mind, I’m done with this now – I actually have a life. Another time, another day, bigot.
Virtually impossible to get an answer without first withstanding the blizzard of vilification and invective that liberals have become famous for.
Oh wait, did I say liberal? Sorry. I meant gay Christian conservative.
Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference.
By the way, is this the new face of Christian conservatism?
I reiterate: Does the state, rather than a parent, have the right to tell children as young as 5 or 6 that the homosexual lifestyle is perfectly normal?
Meh – I don’t fear for their souls any more than anyone else’s. If they’ve accepted Christ as their savior they are saved – period. The bible is very clear on that. As for their sin – well, it’s a sin – period. But so is lying or coveting. All sin is the same to God. I’d say the only difference is in attitude. Most people who sin – repent – and try REALLY hard not to do it again. We do, but we’re REALLY sorry about it. Gays are not sorry in the least about their sin and have no intention of trying to avoid it or in repenting over it.
My two cents.
More music to my ears. As long as conservatives continue to “eat their own” over social issues, we will lose out to the left again & again & again & again & again. When are some people going to come out of the trees & see the entire forest?
Which is why States which have voted on Marriages as being between one Man and one Woman have always passed said amendments. Even California.
Good reasoning there bobcat.
If you are only a fiscal conservative you are only half a conservative.
Yes, the closed-mindedness of a majority often wins in a democracy. It wasn’t that long ago that a majority in this country voted to outlaw alchohol. Remember “the only good Indian is a dead Indian?” Not that long ago. And a LOT of states had majority votes for laws segregating Blacks. Federal law segretated Blacks serving in the military. Fine examples of how “majority opinion” is balanced and fair. Or plainly bigoted.
And all your examples mean less than nothing to my point of the majority is in favor of a moral standing held by .. nigh on all of humanity over time. And that it is a winning issue along with fiscal responsibility.
Marriage is one man and one woman. Not a man and dog or man and man.
Only the moralphobic cannot see that. Your name calling aside, perversion is never a moral position.
Yawn. To start with the narrow-minded prejudice that being gay is a perversion, and then to jusitfy legal discrimination and cultural bigotry based on that narrow-minded mindset is funny.
Oh, and bigoted.
yawn indeed. Name calling seems to be all you are capable of. lol
Just like those homosexuals who assaulted the Mormon churches to intimidate them, you lose when all you can do is name call.
Your tactics don’t work with me. I just laugh at your moralpobia. Your bigoted hatred of decency. BTW, you have not answered about man dog or woman donkey love. Homosexuality-bestiality same same.
You prove my point. Arguing with a bigot is nonsensical. Describing gay romatic partnership as the same as bestiality is pure bigotry.
BTW, just in case I haven’t said it quite enough, you are a bigot.
My my, such hatful and bigoted reaction to loving adults and their equally loving pet lovers. Why the phobic reaction to those who no doubt just want equal treatment and are hurting no one.
Likely they are born with a sexual attraction to animals. Are you so narrow minded as to deny them what they are? Why you bigoted bestialphobe.
Tsk tsk.
You react that way because bestiality is a perversion. Same as homosexuality.
BTW, I used to have a live and let live attitude with respect to homosexuals. But their tactics and attacks on groups like the Boy Scouts has led me to move the other way and to support the re-criminalization of homosexuality to standards like brethren perversions such as bestiality.
You certainly have reinforced such with your narrow minded and bigoted tactics.
As I said earlier (way earlier in this forum) I finally realized you are a liberal mole – probably paid – to demonstrate how bigoted and narrow-minded and stupid conservatives are.
But just in fairness, let’s address your theory.
I think that humans of ANY KIND should not have ANY SEX because it can lead to bestiality and child sexual absue and rape and forced prostitution and all sorts of things. Children can be begotten through the much more sane approach of in vitro fertilization. Thus completely protecting our entire culture (whew) from sexual excess.
As a paid liberal mole “demonstrating” how ignorant and biased Conservative Christians are, you are wasting your time here.
Hey there, “Charlie Brown.” You go ahead there & wait for “Lucy” to swipe away that football just as you are poised to kick it.
“There is ZERO reason and absolutely no moral, legal, social, or religious stance that can withstand scrutiny for picking on people for their sexual orientation. If God chose to make them and Jesus chose to love them, one would think that arrogating to themselves the position of judge, jury and executioner would be blasphemous. Finding reasons to hate and exclude is not a charitable mindset.”
Well, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all condemn homosexual acts. You’re of course free to scrutinize them. But your second phrase is a terrible misunderstanding of Christian doctrine. God cannot just wipe away sin like it’s nothing, it would be contrary to His nature. Giving moral knowledge and saying “look, it doesn’t really matter” is not a truly just and holy God.
For us, pitiful sinners, remains the responsibility to be good. It’s not going to be easy, and we will all eventually fail. We can still, and indeed we should point out the moral failings of the fellow travellers, but we are not judges. And I believe should not be the executioners either.
I don’t hate gays. I wish them well. I point out that their lifestyle choice is immoral, my responsibility ends there.
Always put the oo before the ah. A Chassidc story-
An elderly and very wise Rabbi decided to take his great-grandson to a shvitz ( steam bath ) before the lads Bar Mitzvah. After they changed and entered the steam room the boy could not understand the reason his great-grandfather had brought him into this strange place. While the boy was looking around and distracted the Rabbi picked up a pail of cold water and dumped it on his great-grandson. ” Oooo ” the boy exclaimed at the shock of the cold water hitting him over the head. Moments passed and as the water cooled his skin the boy began to feel wonderful. ” Aaah ” he uttered with pleasure. ” That is why I brought you here ” said the Rabbi, ” To learn the most important lesson in life. Always put the oo before the aah , not the aah before the oo. ”
Life always presents choices.
You have saved for a year for a new appliance. You have your heart set on it. Then on the way to the store you see a family living in their car- destitute and hungry. You reach into your pocket and hand over your hard saved money so they may be comforted. In that moment it is quite human to feel some regret. After all you worked hard, sacrificed and saved and had your heart set on that new surround sound TV. Yet as time goes by you realize how much comfort you brought to those poor folks and their children. As time goes by you are uplifted, you know that what you did was right. You carry that feeling and its effect on your personality all your life. That new TV would have been just one of many other purchases as time goes by but the kindness you did will never be forgotten by you and those you helped. You have put the oo before the ah.
Or you are married and a beautiful woman comes into your life and you find yourself drawn to her. You spend time together and eventually become intimate. It feels great those hours together. Yet the end result is divorce, broken homes, scarred children or at the very least the nagging knowledge that you have betrayed the person who trusted you most. You are scarred and will never forget your own flawed behavior. You have put the ah before the oo.
Is all love equal? Is all love healthy? While I do not take it upon myself to condemn I also do not take it upon myself to condone. Each human being is answerable to his or her own conscience.
I have never met a single person who felt modesty was a poor character trait.
For the record GOProud is immodest, and your essay is an attempt to sidestep the venom of naked snakes while keeping your feet planted on the good earth.
It is a rebuke, so I believe, to Mr. Simon, and to those who tolerate awfully public indecency in the name of peaceful toleration of a person’s privacy and his adult freedom to make choices.
But today these advocates of either over-tolerance or perversion no longer may understand indecency and immodesty. Ask you Rabbi if this is so.
Ask him also, how then do we address this infamy, presented as goodness by the deluded and the callous?
GOProud and Log Cabin Republicans have blogs, Facebook pages etc. Anyone can go look and see what they say and what they are about.
I think you completely misunderstood my post. First I support Mr.Simons position. Second it is each individual who must face their own Day of Judgement. Third, our society suffers because of an enormous lack of modesty. If more people considered public sexuality simply boorish we would live in a better world. I think homosexual behavior is wrong and I think homosexuals who insist I condone their behavior are interfering with my religious freedom and should be condemned FOR THAT. I do not bless them or curse them. That is up to G-d.
Who are YOU to bless anything?
Who are YOU to curse anything?
What’s their’s is their’s and what’s your’s is theirs. For they aren’t stopping to be so polite as to honor the old markers.
Your post makes no sense to me. I say a blessing over every bite of food, every sip of liquid, every sunrise, sunset, and everything in between. I work at constant gratitude for every breath. For the opportunity to live.
I think as little as you understand my point I understand yours.
Your post makes no sense to me.
Of course it could, but shortcuts are easy. What is the blessing one gives to a thief boldly walking down the street with the Torah stolen from the Beit Knesset? What is the curse?
” What is the blessing one gives to a thief boldly walking down the street with the Torah stolen from the Beit Knesset? What is the curse? ”
Thank G-d you rescued the Torah from the fire.
One of the greatest souls of our times was Rabbi Aryeh Levin. There are many famous stories about Reb Aryeh and your question brought one story to mind. Walking on a Sabbath with his little son the boy pointed out the cars being driven in violation of the laws pertaining to Sabbath observance. The great sage replied with a blessing, ” Thank G-d. Look at all the doctors on their way to the hospital to save lives. ” The saving of a life takes priority over Sabbath observance. The lesson is to try and view people favorably and to know ones place. That does not mean we should condone evil.
” There is a G‑d-given commandment, “You shall surely rebuke your fellow.” However, whenever we want to rebuke someone else, we must always first ask ourselves the following questions:
Have I already tried to judge the person favorably? Could there perhaps be some circumstance I am unaware of?
Is the desire to rebuke coming from the right place? Is it only about fixing a problem, or is there a personal agenda here?
Am I saying these words simply to “to get my point across” and fill my need to protest, or might my words actually be effective?
Are the words being said out of love? Out of true concern? Will the other person look at it this way?
What words will have the greatest chance of achieving that aim? Imagine yourself in the other person’s situation. What words would speak to you? Often it isn’t sources or preaching that speak to a person, but rather the respectful manner in which the concern is explained.
Am I the best person to bring up the issue, or is there someone else who could say the same thing and likely accomplish more?
Is now the time to rebuke, or is there another time and place where this has a better chance of working? ”
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1558371/jewish/How-Should-I-Rebuke-Him.htm
A very silly answer!
When you see someone unknown leaving your neighbor’s house with a pillowcase full of what looks like valuables, are you also then so non-judgemental?
Quick comment for Sunday morning, while on my way to Church …
Way to go Roger! You are absolutely correct. Couldn’t agree more
Behold this entire thread of comments as exhibit A in why the Democrats will win in 2012. Republicans and conservatives just cannot let go of their own brand of religion-based freedom squelching. This is more frightening to a majority of Americans than the destructive socialism and statism that the Democrats peddle. Thanks a lot to all of you for four more years of Obama and our inevitable descent into a Euro-style socialist country.
You get it too. Kudos.
bobbcat, you rock. I’ve read all your comments this week all over PJM, and you are truly great. My cap is off to you. Keep up the good fight. Go, bobbcat!
I am PROUD of any organization that says no to what is wrong. Live and let live is a fine philosophy, and one that nearly always works towards peace and prosperity. That includes overlooking that which is unseemly in another.
Yet it is easily understandable that otherwise good folks will be confused in this issue. After all we live in the late stages of an era in which adulterers have been celebrated and admired for being adulterous. It has run a few generations. That celebration of bad behavior came to extend well beyond Hollywood.
It is a necessary dynamic of a healthy society that the act of adultery be despised and intolerable. Why? Well on Friday night we had a clear demonstration of why. On Friday evening at the height of prime time in the classiest district of Philadelphia, the neighborhood of expensive hotels, restaurants, the Union League, just two blocks south of City Hall, a mob of the fruit of adultery made socially common beset violently those born out of decent whole marriages.
Men and women were struck down and left bleeding on the streets, general vandalism and robbery occurred.
Marriage is a keystone of a healthy culture. A society that tolerates abuse of marriage is a society committing suicide.
I am against such suicide. We all, if sane, are against such suicide.
It is wrong to tolerate or associate with a group promoting actions destructive to a society. That is certainly NOT conservative.
“Marriage is a keystone of a healthy culture. A society that tolerates abuse of marriage is a society committing suicide.”
If marriage is a keystone of a healthy culture and the US has a rising divorce rate of around 50% ….a pause is needed…questions must be asked.
What exactly are you trying to preserve?
Why focus on gay marriages as THE BIG SCARY THREAT TO ALL THAT IS HOLY AND GOOD when heterosexual marriages have a pretty slim success rate?
Good point. You are right. If we’re so focused on “saving marriage,” why aren’t we passing laws outlawing divorce? I’m old enough to remember when it was very, very, very difficult for people to get a divorce. Afterall, even Jesus said divorce was a sin.
But then, bigots wouldn’t have the easy target that gay people present.
ONE: Divorce is NOT adultery. Allowance for divorce is a needed part of a culture that truly respects marriage. Even Roman Catholics allow a form of it: that being either annulment or being a Kennedy.
TWO: Yes, divorce rates have been too high. But that is not as much a problem as is (1) adultery and (2) lack of marriage. Marriage being the true legal definition. That legal definition of marriage is an “inalienable” part of our common law. It is as fundamental as the right to life. What is that definition? One 1856 law book mustering had it thus: “MARRIAGE. A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought to exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage.” (Bouvier, 1856)
Webster in 1828 put it more beautifully:
That was common basic knowledge in our nation up until the recent era of many cultural insanities.
And perhaps the worst of the impact of the insanity is visited upon the poorest, the urban black child. Do you have heart to car for the poorest among us?
THREE: The true divorce rate is MUCH lower than 50%. See Robert Hughes at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-hughes/what-is-the-real-divorce-_b_785045.html for a fairly good treatment of divorce numbers.
But even that treatment doesn’t give a direct number for what the chances of a marriage ending in divorce is. Micheal Medved, the talk show host and professional social commentator places the figure at 25% at most.
FOUR: The biggest problem is lack of marriage. The decline in real marriages. Making homosexual unions legal is NOT helpful to that problem, and is certainly a poisonous influence on marriage formation.
“Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” —Matthew 19:6
Jesus had a pretty strong opinion about divorce.
I’m off this thread, you have to be a a little bit intelligent for me to argue with.
Not even enough time for a divorce!
Okay, I jumped the gun. I read your first sentence that focused on adultery rather than divorce and it indicated you weren’t able to focus well enough to argue with.
When you look up “marriage” and the institution of it as a legal (governmental) matter, it began in England where the nobility and the church made a pact to institute a “recognized” version. Until then, two people who agreed they were married – were married. So quoting different “authorities” about what a marriage is – is ludicrous. In earlier times, jumping over a broomstick constituted a marriage.
People who are gay have “married” each other for centuries. You can claim it is not a marriage, but that’s only opinion.
Oh, and Jesus has a strong opinion about divorce… “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” —Matthew 19:6
I still say if you want to “defend marriage and morality,” start with how EASY it is to get a divorce in the country. Gather petitions, pass laws.
Oh, but that would be legally forcing people to abide by scripture.
An incredibly flawed recounting of history regarding marriage and the law, and an even more incredibly flawed overestimate of your own intelligence and knowledge!
The contract of marriage is a vitally important contract within any society. Upon its legal interpretation and fidelity in upholding depend the wealth and fortune of families, generations and nations. The legal recognition of the contract of marriage predates England, as it predates the Angles. And the Saxons, and indeed all the Germanic tribes, not to mention Rome and classical Greece in the most ancient of its legends.
Upon recognizing the validity of marriages and heirs nations have fought long and bitter wars, or in other cases the national wealth has been established and fortified.
Yet in utter folly and a sophomore’s scorn you mock it and by so doing display an ignorance of all of History.
Still, to you, you are so very wise and so bright a star in some imagined constellation of the world’s mot intelligent???
I suggest seeing some clinical psychologist at the earliest opportunity and get a professional scoring of exactly how intelligent you are. Live and learn, friend. Live and learn.
Poor guy. You haven’t a single historical fact to back up your assertions. Laws etc regarding inheritance were not put in place until AFTER the church and the government (the nobles) decided what constituted a “marriage.” Before then it was cultural tradition along with plenty of squabbling.
Lots of good posturing you did, though. Kudos on that.
You are giving an example of a private marriage contract, blessed by a priest. Not an example of governmentally defined “marriage.”
Government has always had an interest in marriage, divorce, inheritance, and public morality. That’s clear from any reasonable survey of human history.
What is also clear, and observed in some part on this very thread, is that the History presented in each generation is always recast and filtered by the fads and novelties of the current era. The topic of this thread touches on two major areas of radical remaking of history. I had been aware of the modern re-writing — the amping up — of the contributions of homosexuals in history, and the co-opting of many personages such as Alexander the Great or Lincoln into persons with homosexuality as major aspects of their lives and personas.
The vicious and vile, the bullies of life, will always be with us. And like dogs to their vomit these bullies will dig up the dead and either wear their skins or stuff them to bring on parade with them in their faddish causes. A favorite skin of dead person to wear in these days, although not exactly in this thread’s context, is Ronald Reagan’s. We are inundated from some quisling quarters of stories of how he and the slovenly no-account grifter Tip O’Neill were best of buddies. They were not, so we
have heard from those who worked alongside Reagan, at the time. But that would not stop the wolves in Reagan’s clothing from making a mountain of legend about Reagan’s tolerance and willingness to get-along and negotiate with his political enemies.
So as the advocates of homosexuality broke into many coffins of the great and made them speak for homosexuality or tolerance of it, so too do they re-write the history of laws and government, of contracts, and in this case of the laws and customs of marriage.
At times governments have FORCED people to marry. The Archons (chief magistrates) of ancient Greece at times did so, and they regulated marriage, who might marry who.
Arranged marriages are tools of diplomacy and statecraft, and require governments making them to enforce them or equitably split them. You will find such devices of LAW in every human culture.
“And like dogs to their vomit these bullies will dig up the dead and either wear their skins or stuff them to bring on parade with them in their faddish causes”
Backing away slowly… slowly …. I believe you would punch me if I were there in person.
Nice boy, nice boy… don’t hurt me. I’m leaving now.
Wow. This is “Anonymous” Day here on Mr. Simon’s post. I’ve counted 16 out of 41. And this doesn’t even count the posts by “Kipling,” which is another word for “Anonymous” or “Ceatris”"johnt” good old “Barbara S” and the really tolerant “Ione.” Then there’s the always dependable “Granny Jan” who never fails to come out of the woodwork against fairness to homosexuals, and “Dr. Mercury” and “sule.”
Congratulations, Mr. Simon. You’ve brought forth an Anonymous Army of Intolerance. Golly, they must be so proud, almost as proud as marchers in a Gay Pride Parade.
And congratulations on your stand against CPAC. I stand with you and against exclusion. CPAC should be grateful for every individual and every group it can get to defeat the current president. CPAC is in no position to turn away anyone. Doesn’t CPAC want to win in 2012? I do.
So you have a problem with anonymous contributors like Zombie, Buzzsawmonkey, and the numerous other writers here at Pajamas Media and the Breitbart sites.
The CPAC can include or exclude whatever groups they choose.
Still, its bad strategy on the conservatives’ part; they need every ally they can get. They also need to wake up and join real life.
The gays are not trying to destroy American society. They are not trying to eliminate your god, and no one is being forced to accept homosexuality.
How about this:
Read the Constitution. In there it is written that any powers not specifically given to government belong to the states. Where is marriage mentioned in the Constitution? Why don’t you just let the states decide on their own, and then go move to a state that doesn’t allow it, and just ignore the other people?
This kind of thing is what I really dislike about both the conservatives and the leftists. Both sides seem to be populated by a bunch of busy-bodies who aren’t afraid to use government power to manipulate behavior, as long as the outcome fits their politics.
Except for this part of the Constitution.
“Section 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. 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 means perversion “marriages” in one State must be acknowledged by all States.
Personally I could care less what perversions a person engages in ones privacy. But you are wrong to state no one is being forced to accept homosexuality. That is exactly the the homosexuals are trying to do… force their perversion on us all. The Boy Scouts is but one example.
Tell you what, I’ll stay out of their bedroom when they stay out of my life and my kids schools.
Will you stay out of their kids’ schools? Will you require that they pay for the schools your kids attend?
They can’t have kids unless a hetero is involved, now, can they?
As a conservative lesbian, I support GOProud and think it was extremely shortsighted of CPAC to exclude them from formal participation. HOWEVER, boycotting CPAC over this situation is counter-productive. As others have noted, this is not the time to start ripping at each other.
With regard to the issue of the ‘homosexual agenda’, well, there is indeed an agenda, some of which I support, much of which I do not. And wouldn’t it be idyllic if we could actually discuss our differences without the cheezy name calling coming from both sides?
I wonder if CPAC’s inquisitions will lead to a more rapid growth for the Libertarian Political Action Conference, which has it’s inaugural meeting in Las Vegas in September.
I think this year’s FreedomFest in Las Vegas is catching up with CPAC’s size already.
LesCon, the “cheesy namecalling from both sides” comment is naive. I’ve been on these forums before and the vile, homophobic rhetoric is without constraint. The gloves are off. Just keep reading. If you haven’t got the seasoning to realize there is sometimes a need to verbally punch back, please don’t insult those of us who are trying.
Roger, thank you for saying this. If the decision isn’t reversed, I, too, want nothing to do with CPAC.
I might still go, but I live walking distance. But I won’t buy the expensive package, which I did last year. It will be more boring if GOProud isn’t there, especially if Breitbart and PJTV are also absent.
CPAC has long been a little cowardly about actually promoting debate. For example the Ron Paulistas have their own separate track of workshops, but the different views about American foreign policy (GOP establishment, Ron Paul, other views) are never put on the same stage and made to debate. It’s cowardly and boring.
For decades, the American Psychiatric Association logically considered homosexuality a disorder. And how, may I ask, is a homosexual mind in a heterosexual body NOT a disorder??? How is the fact that homosexuals are basically impotent with the opposite gender NOT indicative of a disorder??? And please don’t bring up the possibility of so-called “gay genes” as a defense. There are probably genes which predispose us to violence, stealing, promiscuity, etc., as well as genes which contribute to schizophrenia, autism, and many other disorders.
The APA has little credibility nowadays because it is letting silly “political correctness” trump science and logic. Homosexuality should not be normalized. It should be treated for what it clearly is—a disorder. And it is unethical malpractice to treat a disorder (e.g., heart disease) as if it was not a disorder.
Homosexual activity is immoral and should (humanely) be considered as such. It’s also clearly a bad legal precedent. There are other aberrant sexual minorities waiting in the wings for their “rights,” which minorities are currently NOT included in the “rainbow.” These minorities, like, for examples, incestuous consenting adults and exhibitionist consenting adults, are currently being “discriminated against” by GLBT people. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.
Someday people are going to look back at this weird “politically correct” era and wonder how so many people fell for irrational homosexual propaganda. Let’s not go back thousands of years to the decadent Greek and Roman days. Let’s progress not regress.
Let’s progress and not regress. I was taught in my church many years ago that the “mark of Cain” – or curse – was black skin. I was taught by my culture that women are too irrational to hold serious jobs. I could go on and on and on and on. I lived in a state for one year where it was illegal for mixed-race couples to get a marriage license. I now live in a country where scripture is quoted to deny gay people equal treatment under the law (i.e. marrying whom they love). Bigotry is still alive and well, it simply sets its sight on different targets.
MTNCOUGAR, I’ve been reading your comments on this topic here and elsewhere on PJM this past week and I want to salute you, sir or madame. You are one terrific human being, and it’s an honor to be able to read your clear-headed, fair-minded, wonderful comments, especially when it gets heated, as it has on this post and at least one other. I admire your viewpoint and your tenacity in coming back at the intolerant individuals who like to get their rocks off especially on this topic. Way to go, MTNCOUGAR.
Thank you for your many fine contributions.
So you are ok with a man marrying his sheep, or a woman her donkey right? Or does your moralphobia not extend that far.
You do nothing at all to help your credibility by putting words into other people’s mouths. IOW, a cheap shot that will probably garner you points only with fellow bigots. Well done.
Fortunately for me, I do not count you as the keeper of my credibility.
Now if you could comprehend, you would understand I asked a simple question to discern just how big a hypocrite she is. If she condemns those born with a sexual attraction to animals while condemning me and all others who see homosexuals in the same moral light as she evidently sees animal lovers.
Well then she is both a hypocrite and the narrow minded bigot she calls others.
Minicougar,
You can be forgiven for not being aware (because of the dominant media’s ridiculous pro-homosexual bias) that many black people are offended when people compare them to people who voluntarily engage in immoral and aberrant sexual activity. You may want to broaden your news sources. I fear you are being overwhelmed by one-sided, unfounded homosexual propaganda. You probably even believe most or all homosexuals were born that way even though nobody, thus far, has isolated any so-called “gay gene.”
You can be forgiven for thinking I’m influenced by media bias. Afterall, statistics show that a majority of African Americans are anti-gay. I lived in a state where bigotry against Blacks was rampant. I grew up in a culture where bigotry against women – more than you can believe – was rampant. I now live in a state where bigotry against gays is rampant.
It’s not unusual for individuals who have been on the receiving end of bigotry to completely without awareness heap it on others.
Bigotry is bigotry, and just as I fought for fairness for Blacks in my younger years, I fight for fairness for gays in my elder years.
You may want to see if your “statistics” are coming from biased sources. Something like 70% of California’s black voters voted against homosexual “marriage.” Again, you may want to broaden your news sources.
Wordy, you might want to actually READ comments before replying to them.
Being gay, having same sex sexual attractions and fantasies, falling in love with someone of the same sex, are not voluntary.
Being ignorant may be in many cases.
Mr. Majors, Are you saying that homosexuals engage in their sex acts involuntarily? Are you saying they are robots and have no choice about the sex acts they engage in? If so, when you speak of ignorance you may want to look in the mirror.
You were either raised by some really stupid people or you are the biggest liar I have ever seen in my life. And my family is from Mississippi.
Leftovers circulate studies on the internet every month purporting to show that conservatives are mentally ill, fearful, paranoid people whose politics are based on childhood trauma.
It’s possible that one could get a majority of mental health professionals to agree with that. If they codified it in the DSM and put protocols for diagnosis and treatment for conservative personality disorder would that make it true?
Mr. Majors, Are you saying a homosexual mind in a heterosexual body, in a body OBVIOUSLY designed for male/female sex, is NOT a sure sign that something went wrong somewhere (in either nature or nurture)? If so, please enlighten me as to how or why. I’m looking for some logic here, not propaganda.
Most men have nerve endings near the prostate gland that produce pleasure when stimulated, for example my inserting a finger in the anus. I have actually had married women ask me about this as they noticed their husbands seems to enjoy it if the wife’s hand chanced to go anywhere near the husband’s perineum during love-making. (Many men also have very sensitive nipples.)
So clearly, as any Intelligent Design theorist can tell you, God meant for men to not only be gay, but to be “bottoms” as well. For those men born in the Fallen state of heterosexuality, they will have to find a loving woman, who is in the words of Dan Savage, “GGG,” who is willing to go shopping at the Pleasure Chest so they can partake in “pegging” (google it). This is the lesser compromised life you must resort to being someone with a heterosexual mind born into an obviously homosexual body.
Have a Blessed day!
giggle. OMG, Bruce you are incredible! If you would like to take a bow, I’m clapping.
Gay Christian Conservatives celebrating gay Christian conservatism.
I rest my case.
This was anything but a surprise. The ACU was talking back in February about limiting sponsorship to organizations without certain agenda items (e.g., support for repealing DADT).
Those who are angry about this need to stop behaving like leftist undergrads. Failure to passionately embrace someone else’s agenda isn’t evidence of intolerance. What ACU is doing is deciding, as the political heat is turned up by the determination of gay groups to HAVE gay politics, to dissociate itself from explicit endorsement of gay politics.
Quite obviously, an organization for gay Republicans exists in order to focus on the gay aspect. Gay Republicans have a choice of many other groups they can join, if their main concern is other aspects of politics. A lot of them do, in fact.
I don’t know that everyone in GOProud is as committed to having a gay segment of politics as the leadership is. But I do know that the ACU would lose a lot more popular support by explicitly embracing gay identity politics than by not doing so.
Most people bend over backward to be tolerant in terms of having a live-and-let-live attitude. But they’re not going to send their money to political organizations that violate their beliefs. That would just be stupid. Would you do that? Do you? If not, why should social conservatives?
The ACU and its CPAC affiliates are not primarily funded by people who think it’s high time we had more gay-identity politics. They would be suicidal to “take a stand” against their donor base. Looks to me like they’re trying to split the baby by being happy to have GOProud show up, but declining to have the organization co-sponsor the convention.
We can ask why not endorsing the gay identity politics of GOProud is so important to the social conservatives. We can equally ask why having that endorsement is so important to GOProud and those who are angry at the social conservatives. Remember, we’re not talking here about some Republicans who happen to support repeal of DADT, or support same-sex marriage if it’s implemented by due process. Such supporters are issues advocates, and have always included both gays and straights. What we’re talking about is gay identity politics.
It’s not ACU that’s being stupid here. They know their base, and they can point to the long-held conservative position that identity politics are a form of dysfunction, period. Maybe it IS time for the conservative political coalition to collapse and reform; if the ACU compromise for GOProud isn’t acceptable to GOProud, then we’ll see how much that fractures the coalition. What the conservative leadership knows is how badly it would fracture the coalition to proceed any further down the path of embracing gay identity politics.
You are wrong.
Firstly, you’ve got “gay-identity politics” backwards. It is an attempt by gay conservatives to publicly thumb their noses at leftist liberals who think they own every minority breathing. Otherwise – being conservatives and always more interested in working than in politicking – they wouldn’t bother to put the emphasis on “gay.”
I cannot argue statistically but I can use – as you did – personal opinion to categorically state that the Republican Party will gain FAR MORE voters and passionate activists by getting rid of their religiously-based anti-gay stances. Independents. libertarians, and conservatives of ALL STRIPES (not anti-gay Christians) have been lukewarm and holding their noses when they must vote Republican because the liberal leftists are far more dangerous.
We full conservatives have been doing as you say. With that said, we also out number you. We will continue to run things, and if you do not like it, make a third party.
“We outnumber you” … actually you don’t. We ACTUAL conservatives don’t need your votes and don’t need your anti-gay religious narrow-mindedness.
The “third party” will be you.
“We out number you”…Your numbers are bigger than mine? Really? That kind of language brings me back to the good ole days on the playground when bigots like you were only three feet tall and picking on the kid with glasses. If you want the soft cushy pillowy comfort of your big numbers..chew on this-This bigotry will continue to cost conservatives elections. We will continue to slag behind the liberals all because bigots are holding the movement back from attaining the passion, energy and votes we need.
Go get ‘em mtncougar. Been away from the web all day and very sorry I missed the discussion. Couldn’t agree with you more. Conservatives actively defending the cause of their fellow – and ALL – gays will do us a world of good. Expose bigotry, shine a bright light on hatred – wherever it is – and support “what is so.” There are conservative bigots and haters, just as there are liberal haters. Want no part of ‘em. As Barry Goldwater said when I was a lad: “It is the duty of conservatives to maximize freedom.” Amen. Either we support freedom or we don’t. End of story.
Goldwater was an out-of-touch extremist. If you actually believe in that expanding freedom propaganda, how about expanding freedom for, let’s say, gay bashers? Let’s face it, we should only have freedom to do good things, not bad things. (Do you agree?) And homosexual activity is immoral, aberrant, and a bad legal precedent.
Seriously, Wordy, take some logic classes. Or spare the rest of us your strange and convoluted reasoning.
Let’s see…
Being gay is “bad.”
Freedom is for “good things.”
So laws should limit the freedom of those perverted “bad gay people.”
Well, you sure convinced me with your unparalled wit and critical thinking.
No, MTNCOUGAR, you are wrong. Identity politics is identity politics, and the point is not to engage in it. Your argument about how many people will be attracted to the GOP if the ACU changes (again) its posture on GOProud is not an analogue to my point. It’s a different issue. The base served by the ACU and its traditional co-sponsors of CPAC is, in fact, socially conservative.
Frankns invokes Goldwater, but says this: “Conservatives actively defending the cause of their fellow – and ALL – gays,” as if there is a “gay cause” relevant to things that fall within the scope of government.
That is not a conservative position, and it is even less a libertarian one. Conservatives do think there is a role for government in recognizing a limited number of social insitutions. True libertarians prefer that government do that very little or not at all. The coherent libertarian position is that being gay is none of the government’s business, and therefore public policy and politics should not regard it as a consideration for any purpose of government.
We’ve come a very long way from anything approaching genuine libertarianism. There is nothing libertarian about networks of laws that prescribe how we shall behave toward each other based on each other’s sexual orientation. Such laws are the opposite of libertarian, and certainly don’t represent an advance of freedom.
JEDYER, you are wrong. I’m not sure how – I can’t follow your argument past your blanket assertion that GOProud is “identity politics,” – opposing my point that GOProud is thumbing its nose at liberals who think they own minorities.
And well, your point that MY point that we lose independents, libertarians and moderates (of which I’m one) who lacklusterly and despondently vote Republican because liberals are worse … what is your point? That government enforcement of a religious viewpoint (gay people are sinners and perverts) is a necessary component of political conservatisim?
EVERYONE WHO OPPOSES GAY MARRIAGE, no matter how they camouflage it in rhetoric of “protect the family,” ultimately opposes it because SCRIPTURE SAYS IT IS A SIN.
IMHO, this is seriously dangerous terrain. Witches were burned at the stake with this kind of thinking. And I DEEPLY object to the cultural and political and legal bias that my gay friends experience in their lives because people are once again using scripture (backed by government) to justify treating others unfairly.
Minicougar, stop stereotyping. You hurt your limited credibility. I’m not religious at all and I’m against homosexual activity because it’s clearly wrong, aberrant, and a bad legal precedent.
You’re probably lying. Besides, it would be even creepier if you don’t like people who are different from you without even the slightest – even if misled -justification of a reigious context.
Please visit the GOProud website and check out their press releases and issues page. You will clearly see how they place the homosexual agenda over conservatism. Two cases in point is there support of the Democrat lame duck Congress repealing DADT without serious consideration of its impact on the military and their support for the AFL-CIO and SEIU on workplace issues. Feel free to check out the first link I posted for more details.
Mintcougar is correct. I run a gay politically incorrect blog, mainly for fun but also to be informative, and it has become my favorite hobby. I totally do it to pick the scabs off of gay and gay-friendly leftists’ hypocrisy and stupidity, and not really at all to bring the gay gospel to conservatives.
Smacking the socialists around is much more fun and much more needed than belittling you fundie bigots. They have a lot more power than you do. Your whining is using up my time that I should be using to take down Barney Frank and the Obama-Reid-Wasserschmit regime.
After reading this thread, I can see why CPAC would have made the decision not to invite GOProud to participate in a formal role in this year’s convention. This is exactly the type of counter-productive wrangling that will redirect the focus of conservatives from the need for limited government, fiscal responsibility and constitutional integrity to any of a variety of single-issue agendas. Just as a discussion with a formal libertarian group always turns into an argument about legalizing drugs, the need for single-issue groups to turn the discussion toward their hot-button issue is NOT going to contribute to the defeat of the Ruling Class statists in 2012.
If you feel the urgent need to turn the CPAC convention into the same sad spectable of partisan wrangling that we have witnessed in Washington D.C. for the past 7 months, please DO boycott the event, so that those who want to keep their eye on saving our constitutional republic to get on with the job at hand!
Don’t be surprised if “gay” Republicans are just RINOs who are really Democrats trying to divide and conquer the Republican Party. That’s how some unscrupulous, amoral people operate.
This is a classic case of where American Politics has “painted itself into a corner” syndrome. A “command economy” just doesn’t produce anything positive for any Country’s citizenry.
Distilling this “political soup” down to its basic problem it’s really quite simple: We the People vs. We The Elite People.
We The People are tired of being vassals to anointed We The Elite People in Washington DC. Look at what Ms. Rhee is doing in Washington DC’s school system and the heavy handed “push back” she’s getting from the Anointed Elites.
This is symptomatic of every State, County, Parish, and Municipality across our USof A. We The People are All Americans First. Not We The Elite People’s vassals to be taxed into indentured servitude status.
We The People demand equal footing, recognition and representation in everything political in Our USofA…period! And We The Elite People better put that in their pipe and smoke it, as it were.
Vote this 2012 election! Massive fraud is on its way. Have every State’s Legislature enact a Voter ID law. God Bless America.
“Personally I could care less what perversions a person engages in ones privacy.”
Depends on exactly what it is that you’re doing, I reckon.
If you’re engaging in sexual intercourse with two year old girls, I’d care enough to execute the offender. If you’re a guy performing fellatio on another guy, OTOH, I really couldn’t care less.
It all depends on what the perversion is and what your standards are.
Dito here on the pedophile being executed. Guess we are both bigots, narrow minded pedopliephobes. Real Neanderthals.
We all know that the majority of pedophile perverts are fa66ots. A typical fa66ot swallows more than 1.5 gallons of semen a year, has over 500 partners a year, consumes more than 18 liters of urine, eats more than 4.5 grams of feces per year and also molest poor innocent children 7 times more than normal people.
Good for CPAC. What’s next? Zoophiles trying to attend CPAC? I’m a regular supporter and attendee of CPAC and finally we are able to do what’s right!
Obviously you’ve never had fine French cuisine.
That was actually funny, in a warped kind of way.
Life is so unfair. I’m gay and I had to work this weekend and didn’t get to be in a ferry queue (which sounds fun, whatever it is). I’m reposting this as a news tidbit (i.e. I am stealing it) at my politically incorrect (i.e. radical libertarian tea party right wing conspiracy) gay humor blog, “Big Homo,” lovingly named after the passion of our Hero and Maximum Leader (though this week my man crush is aimed more at FOX’s Ed Henry).
All you social cons, homophobes, and everyone else from Kings and Queens to the scum of the earth are democratically and diversely welcome to come read it.
http://www.bighomocon.blogspot.com
XXO
“Describing gay romatic partnership as the same as bestiality is pure bigotry.”
Not if you’re saying that they’re both perversions, because they are both perversions.
Most people don’t have sexual encounters with barnyard animals (I hope), and most people don’t form romantic partnerships, or engage in sex with members of the same sex. That makes those behaviors perversions, by definition.
Many people are good at hiding their ‘perversions’ for fear of people like you.
Actually, people hide their perversions out of shame.
It’s unfortunate that people don’t hide their bigotry out of shame. The internet is good for that.
Well it helps that for the last few years the terms Bigot, Racist, Rapist, and Woman-Hater have been used in ways that can be translated as: You Who Disagree With My Agenda.
So once one realizes this being called a bigot has the same amount of kick as being called a poopyhead (zero).
The presence of GoProud has been divisive and (from reading their literature) they seem to be one of those In-Betweens. Too conservative to be Liberal and too Liberal to be Conservative.
So if they are divisive and are only slightly more conservative than Arnold Schwarzenegger then resistance is not bigotry.
If they wanted to join in they could have but it was more than that. They bashed social conservatives like myself in order to drive us out.
So sorry if we get a little miffed about that. Oh but at least we aren’t alone. Looks like the CPAC leaders have noticed the divide heralded by GoProud and are taking logical steps to include them without giving them too much power.
I call you “bigots” so that you are clearly aware that not everyone who is a conservative agrees with your anti-gay agenda. Many of us see you as bigots, although many are also too “gentlemanly” to say so. It is not intended to slander you (most bigots are immune to shame) it is intended to awaken you to the fact YOU DO NOT OWN THE CONSERVATIVE OUTLOOK and mindset and conversation.
“Many people are good at hiding their ‘perversions’ for fear of people like you.”
Unless you’re a pedophile, you don’t have much too fear from me.
I really don’t care what your kinks are. Enjoy to your hearts content…just don’t block traffic while you’re doing it.
IOW…you’re fearing the wrong guy, if you’re fearing me.
What does “perversion” mean to you? Something for which you feel revulsion?
Lots of people feel revulsions: to mushrooms, to eggs, to sex in general, to dwarves, to people of various races, to old people, to naked body parts, to various heterosexual sex acts (anal, oral), to violence, to blood, to surgery, etc etc.
I don’t think anyone has shown a genetic, chromosomal, hormonal or other physical difference between people who have committed bestiality and those who haven’t. But with gays and non-gays there is growing evidence of such differences. You would do better to stick to the analogies between homosexuality and addiction or kleptomania.
Are you saying that if stranded on an island for decades you would just as soon couple with the livestock as with a human of the same sex? That seems to me to betray a perverted and disordered personality.
‘What does “perversion” mean to you?’
It means the same thing to me as it means to anyone who owns a dictionary.
It just means abnormal. Most people don’t engage in homosexuality or engage in romantic attachments with people of the same sex. It is abnormal, and therefore, by definition, a perversion.
A typical dictionary definition:
“2. A sexual practice or act considered abnormal or deviant.”
So beauty, genius, musicality, green thumbs, purity, athleticism, etc. are all perversions, because they are statistically abnormal. Thanks for the enlightenment Procrustes.
As I tell leftovers over at my Open Salon blog, some right wingers have similar evil and perverted character flaws to many left wingers. Both are consumed with envy: they hate success, ability, achievement (and therefore capitalism); you hate fun, pleasure, happiness (and therefore liberty).
You can be redeemed. You need not be a hate-consumed, twisted little monster your whole life. You can be better. You can be forgiven.
“So beauty, genius, musicality, green thumbs, purity, athleticism, etc. are all perversions…”
No, they aren’t perversions, because they aren’t sexual acts or behaviors, Bruce.
“2. A sexual practice or act considered abnormal or deviant.”
Is there something about that dictionary definition of perversion that you don’t understand?
Sorry, if you don’t like what the word means, or if you struggle with the concept that heterosexual acts are the norm, and homosexual acts aren’t, but the word still means what it means, whether you have trouble dealing with it or not.
Most people don’t have red hair – only 1-2% of the world’s population. Most people don’t have extremely high IQ’s. Or naturally perfectly straight teeth.
OMG! Aberration! Perversion! Make sure those redheads can’t marry or there could be more of them!
People who use the fact that gays are a MINORITY as justification for calling them abnormal or aberrant or perverted are sick people indeed.
“Most people don’t have red hair – only 1-2% of the world’s population. Most people don’t have extremely high IQ’s. Or naturally perfectly straight teeth.”
“OMG! Aberration! Perversion!”
Those are aberrations, yes. Perversions, not really.
Perversion is usually used to describe aberrant acts or behaviors relating to sexuality.
“People who use the fact that gays are a MINORITY as justification for calling them abnormal or aberrant or perverted are sick people indeed”
No, actually they’re just people who actually know what the words abnormal, aberrant or perverted mean.
There’s nothing “sick” about noting that having red hair is abnormal or aberrant…because it isn’t the norm to have red hair and that’s what aberrant (in this context aberrant simply means deviating from the norm) or abnormal means.
Same thing for noting that homosexual behaviors are aberrant/abnormal/perverse.
You seem to have some sort of emotional issue when it comes to confronting the fact that homosexual behaviors aren’t the norm. Maybe you should seek counseling to help you deal with it.
Red hair is “not really” a perversion. Just kind of a perversion?
Though shalt not suffer a witch to live. Thou must round up those freckled, gingered children of Satan and burn them at the stake, for the glory of God!
You may be correct Mintcougar. Some of these anonymous entities are too stupid not to be leftist sock puppets.
‘Red hair is “not really” a perversion.’
Stop right there, Bruce. You actually said something that’s correct. Don’t keep babbling or you’ll start spewing nonsense…
Darn! Too late, He kept going…and a flood of gibberish ensued.
You were right about having red hair not being a perversion, because while it isn’t normal, it also isn’t a sexual act or practice and therefore isn’t a perversion…but then you went nuts and started babbling about witches and whatnot, thereby spoiling one of your few lucid moments.
No one is more against the idea of “gay marriage” which I consider perversion of the first order, or more against abortion which I consider a form of infanticide in all but the extreme circumstances than I am (life of the mother).
However, the thought of Obama in the White House for another four years is so terrifying, so self-defeating, that I am asking for these issues to be tabled for 16 months, and we can lay these very important difference aside, so that we remove this current buffoon from the Presidency without interruption.
Prioritize your responsibilities.
The first responsibility if you give a damn about this survival of country is watching Obama frogmarched to the curb in Jan. 2013.
We can debate these issues ad infinitum starting November 2013 – and will. But not before we get rid of as many progressives as humanly possible next year.
We shouldn’t table this issue. Intelligent conservatives like myself can easily win debates against homosexuals and their misguided straight supporters. We should use this issue to our advantage and peel away conservative Democrats and persuade them to vote for decent conservatives.
Please begin making or winning an argument anytime now.
While you’re at it, when you finish annoying the gays go win one against Obama.
” The first responsibility if you give a damn about this survival of country is watching Obama frogmarched to the curb in Jan. 2013. ”
Amen!
Thank goodness that we stand up for normalcy for once. We do not need these perverts to ruin our chances for 2012.
As our lord states these fa66ot perverts are going to rot in hell for perverting our society with their fa66ot agenda. Good for CPAC!
Nice try…now go back to your beer and pizza. You’ll feel better when you sober up.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention; your check is in the mail, it went out with the one going to the honorable Rev. Phelps, your fellow toad
attempting to goad
all who drive on the road.
Yikes.
Overlooked in this discussion, I believe as I have not read all the posts, is that the John Birch Society got the same treatment as GOProud. Somebody will have to explain to me why an educational institution which is constitutionaly oriented cannot sponsor a conservative event. The new leadership of ACU is really off base regarding this organization. I do not want to believe that another sponsoring organization required JBS not be included in next year’s event in order for them to participate.
I’ve never understood this business about taking “pride” in one’s sexual orientation. Nor do I understand making that orientation the centerpiece of one’s identity. But, heck, that’s just me.
If GOProud’s website is any indication, gay conservatives appear concerned about the same stuff as hetero conservatives: We are conservatives who believe in limited government, individual liberty, free markets, a strong national defense and a confident foreign policy. Hey, me too. Here, at least, their pride seems to be in their principles, not their sexuality. Their mission statement says: GOProud represents gay conservatives and their allies. Now it gets a little murky. Am I an ally by virtue of simply being a fellow conservative? What if I oppose same-sex marriage? Am I still an ally? For the record, I consider a gay conservative my ally in the fight for conservative governing principles regardless of his/her position on marriage.
I’ve never paid much attention to what goes on at CPAC. Do GOProuders attend in order to exchange ideas and strategies with fellow conservatives or do they harangue about gay “issues?” Do social cons at CPAC harangue about any of their issues?
One thing: Of course there’s a homosexual agenda; it’s absurd to say, or pretend, there isn’t. I’ve watched it evolve over the decades, sometimes amused, sometimes bemused, sometimes indignant and sometimes downright angry (my hottest flash point is the way in which the AIDS epidemic was handled). So, while I’m happy to share my little tent with anyone who shares my conservative dogma, I’m not interested in having anyone’s agenda shoved in my face.
At any rate, Roger, Andrew, CPAC, GOProud and everyone else should make the stand they feel they have to make as long as they’re standing on principle. We don’t all have to agree with one another to get along with one another.
I urge you to read their press releases to get a better understanding of what they support. They publicly present themselves as conservatives but have supported the repeal of DADT by a lame-duck Democratic Congress. They have also sided with the AFL-CIO and SEIU on labor issues. The first link I posted elaborates on their positions on these issues. They also have a nasty habit of attacking other conservatives who do not toe the GOProud view on homosexuality – Senator Jim Demint and the Heritage Foundation, among others.
I am afraid that for Mr. Simon and Mr. Breitbart, we all do have to agree with them on the homosexual issue before they will get along with us.
I agree, this fa66ot organization is nothing but a conduit of pedophiles who want to highjack CPAC and turn it into a NAMBLA convention. That is the real fa66ot agenda.
I think I see a Moby breaking through the waves, Captain.
Yup…thar she blows!
Equating gays with pedophiles is a sure sign that you are either deeply dishonest or a complete moron and cannot make an actual argument for whatever your hate-filled position is.
Not to mention that bearing false witness is one of the big ten sins, not one of the lesser 613 rules in the Hebrew bible.
So I take it you enjoy warm weather.
Kipling the SEIU charge is so salient and potent to your attempt to destroy GOProud’s reputation as a respectable limited government advocacy group that if you were right about them and you knew what you were doing you should have provided a link and quoted a few paragraphs.
Here is the link you requested. Erick Erickson does a good rundown of why GOProud is not a conservative organization. The reference and a link to the GOProud website dealing with their support of Big Labor is contained therein.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/02/10/this-is-too-much-for-me/
The link was in my original post where I first pointed out their support for the AFL-CIO and SEIU. Based upon your unwillingness to look at other sources I have referenced – even those here at Pajamas Media – I really do not expect you to look at this one.
I agree that the rhetoric of “pride” could be misleading, and now that we all have the internet and premium cable we can see all kinds of drunk, dumb, immature gays taking “pride” in themselves just for being gay, the same way we have always been able to see heterosexuals do the same on reality TV and gossip tabloids. I think the assertion of “pride” is to reverse the idea or attitude that someone must live hobbled in shame because they happen to have been born gay. It’s obvious that there are several posters here invested in seeing that hobbling continue.
On the other hand, even though most gays don’t have commensurate achievements, Plato, Socrates, Michealangelo, Wittgenstein, John Locke, Immanuel Kant and the many other confirmed bachelors whose work created liberty and the Western world aren’t anything to be ashamed of, are they?
Since when did staying single mean (likely) homosexual?
Unless they stated that they were homosexual in their writings, I wouldn’t presume to assume that people long dead were anything else but bachelors.
If you read anything by or about those authors you will learn that some were rather openly and even notoriously homosexual. Others had patterns of close male friendships.
I would also advise you not to buy cars or real estate without the counsel of a trusted and competent friend.
Big deal. Provide proof of your assertions, from each author’s own writings, with reference and page numbers.
Just because someone is a close friend with another of the same sex in NO WAY substantiates your claims of their homosexuality, nor is heresay valid proof.
Your insults trouble me not in the least, considering their source…but thanks for the advice.
“I too will not be attending CPAC next year…”
Me neither. For one thing, I’m an extreme right winger and I don’t want to closely associate with ANY formal political group, party or government. They all give me the willies.
And I dang sure ain’t interested in hanging out with a group that picks Mitt Romney as it’s favored presidential candidate three straight freaking years in a row.
If I want to hang with crazy people, I can do that at the state mental hospital.
“Conservative” implies (or should) an ideology. While the “proud” movements are all about Identity politics. That says a lot, and for that only I agree with CPAC position.
Having read the article and the ensuing debate on comments I would like to throw in my humble opinion:
America and its laws were based on christian judeo concepts and beliefs, on her independence she chose a more enlighted path that of keeping our goverment secular and utilizing Jesus attitude which is give unto Cesar what is Cesars and unto God what is God’s this ensured that religion would be a private matter and as such it would be protected as long as it stayed a private matter.
Now most of us here have concerns with Sharia law, we would not under any circumstances want it implemented as the law of the land, so why should any religious law become the law of the land… that is why we have separation of church and state.
As a christian I am a sinner, my sins are not valued as being of less importance than any other sins… sin is sin, God does not treat them differently, they are all judged the same.
So here is my take on marriage, first no government should be in the business of marriage, government is a legal entity and should therefore be in the business of contracts, when two people why to cohabit and form a relationship then they should apply to the government for a partners license to give it legal recognition, Marriage should be the sole responsiblity of a religious organization, they of whatever sect, belief can give recognition if they so chose, if they do not recognize the rights of gay folks to be married then they can withhold it, there are sufficient religious communties that do recognize it and as such will probably welcome them.
On the statement of teach gender divirsity/sexuality in our schools it should stop immediately, no school or goverment body should have the right to teach our children about sex in any form, be it gay, heterosexual, transgender or bisexual, that is the business of parents and them alone, if they need to teach about procreation then stick to the birds and bee’s its worked well for decades, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
On social education issues regarding the last statement I don’t deem it responsible for any kid to be informed of this until they are relatively old enough say 16 or 17 so that they can make their own judgements.
Lastly, on the left wing agenda, by treating everyone equally you deny the left ammunition for their complaints, if everyone is equal in law and treat as such then no group who feels denigrated, segregrated, discriminated has a leg to stand on, an immediate ban on all laws that partition and give special rights to any group, stop the balkanization of our country, this should be an ammendment to the constitution to protect all our citizens
At the end of the day the less government is involved in our lives the better it is for all of us, as a christian I have enough worries with my own life, family, sins to be worried about someone elses…
Thats my two cents worth,
So from the fair sea’s off the coast of Somalia I wish you all a blessed day
God Bless the United States of America and all her wonderful children.
Doc;
” As a christian I am a sinner, my sins are not valued as being of less importance than any other sins… sin is sin, God does not treat them differently, they are all judged the same. ”
While not a christian I doubt whether it considers walking away from a a car you hit without leaving a note and committing murder. There are indeed some sins that are worse than others.
God doesn’t care…..
BTW Conservative and Proud is a Libretard masquerading as a conservative, just ignore the troll…
wow! this thread really took off- as it probably should
both “sides” have very valid points
the main link that needs to be addressed is morality
i believe that conservatism as a philosophy must never disregard the importance of morality– in this i concur with “socons” (for lack of a better name)– since it is the framework/foundation of everything else
i can empathize with the biblical “statutes” but, at the same time, the bible can be as manipulated and misused as “wikipedia”
personally, i believe our american default position of morality should emulate the 10 commandments and the “golden” rule more than anything else– not specifically for the reasons of “heaven or hell” but for what the consequences of “breaking” a commandment and the effects relating to human nature that stem from certain decisions
i do not have a problem with “gay conservatives” but i do have a problem with “groups”, “special interests,” and “advocacy groups”
i believe it is time to consolidate/define the parameters of the republican “big tent”– what do republicans have in common, what do they have not, at what point does one no longer associate with republicans, what are conservatives to republicans, what is the tea party to conservatives, to republicans– ad infintitum
this is why i’m a broken record regarding the need to re embrace the debate and ideology of capitalism versus collectivism and not just in a 5 second sound byte
i think most would casually agree that it is via the economy that links most americans (whether known or not) and it certainly is the common thread that provides the greatest bulwark against statism– the shared enemy to all of us–
it is a necessary condition for political freedom (the essence of our country as a constitutional republic or a “european” socialist democracy) to first have economic freedom– then it can be specifically seen, if one truly wants to, where the deviations within the “republican” voting bloc occur
the true compromise that needs to regain prominence in the national narrative is not the fictitious sculpting of a hybid working model taking bits of capitalism and totalitarianism and saying voila (the focus of congress and the media) but, rather, the compromise between conflicted persons who can agree on the basic tenants and interrelationship between free markets and free people
Anyway, if you listen to idiots like MTNCOUGAR or Bruce Majors you’re hearing the same thing I’ve heard from GOProud, which is an hysterical stream of invective the minute you don’t toe their ideological line, even if it’s something as minor as pointing out that homosexual acts fit the dictionary definition of perversion.
Big surprise that members of the ACU don’t really want them around. I wouldn’t want them around either.
Actually David I don’t care what you believe or say or what you think about gay people. I just enjoy pointing out your lies and errors, especially when you bear false witness while claiming to speak for biblical morality.
Be revulsed by thinking about gays and what they do all you like. Just don’t ask me to support your organizations or activities while you exclude them.
Majors continues to display his idiocy.
Not once have I cited the bible or made a comment about morality, biblical or otherwise. He lies, and he lies badly.
I also haven’t said a single word about being revolted by homosexuals or by homosexual acts. On the contrary, I said:
“If you’re engaging in sexual intercourse with two year old girls, I’d care enough to execute the offender. If you’re a guy performing fellatio on another guy, OTOH, I really couldn’t care less.”
When Majors implies that I’m revolted by homosexuals or homosexual acts, he’s assuming things that are directly contrary to what I’ve repeatedly said (that’s because he’s an ass).
Lastly Majors shows his inability to read and think when he makes comments about organizations I support, right after I got done saying that I don’t like being associated with organizations (especially political ones). I’m a loner. I don’t do clubs.
In short, Majors is both dishonest and a fool.
Dave, Have you ever noticed the rules about posting on PJM, especially Rule #3 which forbids ad hominem attacks? Apparently not. Perversion is also an intellectual act:
Examples of PERVERT from Merriam-Websters Dictionary:
1)People who pervert their religion to support violence
2)They perverted the truth to help further their careers.
According to this definition, I think many people who have commented here to have perverted everything imaginable about the real meaning of religion. The purpose of religions that are descended from Jesus Christ is not to cast stones at people you find repulsive. That is a perversion of Christianity and Catholicism The true essence of these religions is love: God’s love for His children (who include homosexuals and lots of other people who turn the oh-so-judgmental stomachs of so many high and mighty commenters here inside out with rage and intemperance) and God’s encouragement that we love one another and turn the other cheek.
There are some people who keep posting their hatred and intolerance in response to Roger L. Simon’s decent, admirable and courageous stand who make it quite a challenge for people of good will such as MNTCOUGAR, bobbcat and me to turn the other cheek.
But you’ve got my other cheek, all right, Dave and “Kipling” and your little buddies in your happy band of ill will. I just won’t tell you which cheek I’m turning.
Gloria Tucci, your comment (esp the last sentence, of course) has made it possible for me to leave this forum smiling.
And thanks for your earlier comment – it gave me the “juice” to stay around and tussle longer than I would have otherwise.
I don’t think this forum was moderated? since so many comments turned creepy so quickly. It wasn’t appealing for me to comment-in-kind, but anything less would have had zero effect.
It was nice to draw fire and ire – signals of a job well done.
My deepest support to you and all others including PJ and Bobbcat and Belladonna and Simon as you continue presenting a fair-minded, thoughtful, and balanced perspective on this subject.
Thank you, MTNCOUGAR. I much appreciate all you’ve written, and I do appreciate your words of support. It was quite a week, wasn’t it?
“Dave, Have you ever noticed the rules about posting on PJM, especially Rule #3 which forbids ad hominem attacks?”
Sure have, but since I don’t employ ad hominem arguments, your point, like those of your little friends, is meaningless babble.
As for your offer to display the cheeks of your fat ass…I’ll take a pass on that one, so don’t bother turning it.
So, with all this, and in every other thread like it, the world wide web over, those in favor of gay rights have yet to give any evidence that a society can thrive while celebrating same sex relationships. Yet they call those of us who look at the evidence and come to the conclusion that allowing same sex marriage, and in fact any celebration of same sex relationships would be detrimental to the whole of our society bigots.
On the one hand, nothing but feelings, and they are the good people. On the other hand evidence that has never been proven false, and we are considered bigots.
I think they project much.
Go to one of the 7 states/D.C. that allow gay marriage and ask them how they feel about gay marriage. The resounding answer will be that it has impacted them and their lives in no way at all. Watch this recent video from a NH tea party rally in which everyone who was asked and responded said that they could care less. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/04/19/159677/nh-gay-marriage/ The truth is that your radical push to thrust a incorrect literal definition of scripture on this country as a whole is inconsistent with conservative theory dating back to its modern roots with Burke.
per your link.
“New Hampshire Tea Party Activists Don’t See Harm From State Same-Sex Marriage Law”
Do not see. This does not mean does not exist. Thousands of years of human culture has shown there is a harm from it. Suddenly because it has been in existence for ten whole years we can conclude that all those centuries of proof, those millions of people as evidence, those societies after society that degraded and then collapsed were just flukes of nature. The truth is that 10 years of evidence which is at best inconclusive, but far more likely, as the research shows, is actually negative as the decline already present has increased in slope.
Its hard to get rid of your bigotry. I doubt you will be able to.
“as the research shows” – Cite the research that directly correlates our present economic woes to the increased tolerance of same-sex relations. Prove your thesis. Or admit you have no proof. Either way, until you do you’re at best lazy and at worst a liar.
http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/293D90A5-2BC3-44DC-A723-5897E25B75E4/0/pb05e126.pdf
In case you did not know, they allowed gay marriage starting in 2001. They are the only one that has had it long enough to use for any statistics. No other society has had it in a long time before that. Every last one no longer exists, having been replaced by societies that embrace the culture of life, instead of the culture of death.
Again, you lose. You cannot win a debate where you have nothing to offer. You have not one bit of evidence in your favor. Not one. Any bit you try to convert to your favor shows it is the exact opposite. Get a clue.
First thing wrong with your argument is that you cite research you clearly don’t even bother to thoroughly read. You say, “In case you did not know, they allowed gay marriage starting in 2001.” Whereas the research you cited states clearly that, “The population growth rate started slowing down in 2000.” Gay marriage was legalized after the population growth slowed down.
Second item amongst your numerous logical errors is that you have once again failed to provide a shred of evidence connecting the two events. “Research” as you seem to think of it is connecting two unrelated events without the bother of responsibly discovering causation. Your logic is the equivalent of assuming that the fact that a bicycle crossed the road behind me must have caused me to crash my car because they happened nearly at the same time, when in fact I crashed because I ran a red light. You’re not looking at all the data points, just the ones convenient to your viewpoint.
Third bit of fanciful logic you employ consists of the idea that gays and lesbians would have somehow not gotten together and settled down if the Dutch had not legalized same-sex marriage. People who deeply love each other don’t let unjust laws stop them from expressing their love. Just ask Mildred and Richard Loving, who were arrested by Virginia authorities for their 1958 marriage in DC. Gays and lesbians haven’t been arrested for their relationships since Brown v. Texas in 2001, but even criminalization with jail penalties doesn’t stop love.
The fourth bit of flawed reasoning is that you assume that gay marriage is responsible for population decline but neglect to detail the mechanics of this supposed “culture of death” and have yet to show any research proving even the existence of this “culture of death” in every society that has tolerated homosexuality. I might remind you that the Greeks are very much alive and well, as are the descendants of the Romans, and while neither will again reach the aegis of political power they once enjoyed, both societies are much more tolerant of sexual diversity than they were when they collapsed and reformed.
You also have yet to explain how the Roman example proves your point, especially given the Romans became increasingly intolerant of both homosexuality and democratic values before their decline. I’m ready and waiting to see actual research that directly supports your theory, rather than the unconnected ramblings and flawed assumptions you’ve provided thus far. I suspect I’ll be waiting an awful long time.
And, you do not read my entire argument before spouting off garbage replies. I already stated that celebrating gay relationships causes an already declining society to decline even faster, by adding an additional burden on the part of the society that is healthy. So, look at the chart again.
Get a clue, get an education, and get the facts, then try and put it all together. It is not that hard.
In reply to your wildly inaccurate claims about evidence and a lack thereof:
1. Many Native American cultures, prior to European contact, accepted fully into the tribe persons who identified as what we would now refer to as GLBT or Two-Spirit (coming from the Anishinabe word “Niizh manidoowag.”) Now, having grown up in the WELS, I’m familiar with the habit of dismissing “heathen” practices because of their source, but this tradition of embracing transgender and non-heterosexual persons and relationships occurred in some form or another in over 130 tribes and in every region of the Americas. To date, the decline or demise of not a one of these tribes has been linked to their embrace of non-Western gender modes and sexual norms. Other similar social constructs have been seen in many other indigenous cultures throughout the world, including the idea of Hijra in South Asia.
2. Same-sex marriages and pairings have been practiced for millennia, and yet the human race thrives and society is rich and diverse. In the Roman Republic, for example, same-sex marriages were not unheard of. The transition to Empire, however, saw them banned and later emperors actively persecuted homosexuals. Oddly enough, it was not a gay-loving empire that died, but a homophobic and largely Christian Rome that fell into decay and never rose again. That alone would seem to contradict your assertion that accepting same-sex marriage was detrimental to society.
3. With few exceptions, the multitude of barbarian fiefdoms that grew out of the death of Roman Empire were benign towards homosexuality and same-sex couples. It wasn’t until a general reversion to bigotry and persecution obtained strength in the late 12th century that homosexuals, along with Jews, Muslims, “heretics”, and others were commonly exiled or executed from European states. So even “Western” civilization has had periods of time in which same-sex relationships were tolerated or even accepted.
There is plenty of evidence and history out there that contradicts your narrow view of the supposedly disastrous consequences of accepting homosexuality and homosexual relationships. Yet you reject it without consideration. That does indeed make you a bigot, which Webster defines as “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.” Bigot you are and bigot you shall be until the day you accept that you can disagree with someone without having to force your views upon them through force of law.
Yeah, where are the Native Americans now?? Thriving? Do not see it friend.
Yeah, where is that Roman Republic now? Thriving? Do not see it friend.
Yeah, where are those barbarian tribes now? Thriving? Do not see it friend.
So, you have demonstrated that my argument has been correct all along, but your opinion is that I am wrong and thus a bigot. Do you see a problem with that? Every single culture that has happily tolerated homosexual relationships stopped thriving and no longer exists.
There a few recent adds to the gay tolerant and celebratory crowd, the one in Europe is already showing a decline, and as always was in decline right before they adopted the gay rights agenda, and surprise the decline sharpened.
How is that bigotry treating you? Making you feel all superior because your brain is too messed up to see truth even while you are using it as the point of your argument?
Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit, which is to be expected I suppose from one with such a tenuous grip on reality. Undoubtedly, you will continue to flatly reject or even fail to read any of this because you believe your arguments to be superior and infallible. So in that regard, please enlighten us as to how the acceptance of homosexuality inevitably causes social decline? Is it that—as in the case of the Native Americans—this tolerance leads inevitably to invasion by an aggressive foreign culture bearing strange diseases and superior technology? Or is it more like the terminal decline you claim Europe is currently in, where same-sex marriage causes the stock market to dip, rather than irresponsible investing in risky securitized mortgages? Or is it like how the Roman Republic fell? Except that they didn’t. The Republic became and Empire. One of the emperors banned same-sex marriage. Then a later emperor criminalized homosexuality itself and made death the punishment. So explain that one… how did tolerance of homosexuality in the Roman Republic lead to the death of the virulently homophobic Empire nearly 500 years later?
Native American tribes aren’t thriving because we (non-Native Americans) moved in and displaced them. That had nothing to do with their lack of acceptance for our social and sexual norms until we punished them for failing to become more like us. They were doing just fine right up until we showed up with guns, germs, and iron implements, three things for which they had no response and no defense.
The Roman Republic, as I previously stated, did not fail. It became the Roman Empire. The Empire became homophobic, outlawed same-sex marriages and homosexuality, became corrupt, and rotted out from within, with the Roman Church being the sole remaining functioning arm of the Roman Empire. Even then, it took the Roman Church nearly 600 years to reassert political control over those “barbarian state” which became the predecessors of modern day European nation-states.
Most of whom are still around. Or did you not realize that Gauls and Franks are the ancestors of the French? And that doesn’t even address the fact that none of those cultures failed due to marriage-related issues. Not a one. Ironically, of the ones that did fail, many failed after they had banned non-Western modes of relationship and sexual expression, though that has little to do with why they failed and more to do with systemic corruption that results from the concentration of power.
Your next claim is even more laughable: “Every single culture that has happily tolerated homosexual relationships stopped thriving and no longer exists.” First, none of those cultures suffered a decline due to their tolerance, and as previously stated, many became less tolerant of homosexual relationships before they began to decline, the Roman Empire included. Are you not familiar with the Justinian Code, part of which mandated the execution of homosexuals? Second, Rome still exists. Its culture has changed and adapted from what it once was, but so has every other culture on earth. Greece also exists. As do the Anishinabe, from whose language the term Two-Spirit comes from. Of course, you might be more familiar with the European name for them: Ojibwe. Also, the “hijra” are alive and well in India and other South Asian cultures.
Cultures change. People migrate. Civilizations rise and fall. Same-sex marriage has ended none of them. Your refusal to see that is part of your bigotry, but what makes you a bigot is your insistence on legislating your views on others. I’ve no such desire. Feel free to continue believing homosexuals to be immoral after same-sex marriage is legalized. It’s your right. But this “sky is falling” nonsense about tolerating homosexuality is hogwash and I suspect one day you’ll eventually come to see that.
Your only argument is that same sex marriage did not end them. Of course not. No one ever claimed it did. Straw-man much? But, the culture none the less died out, because in order to embrace the same sex relationship lifestyle and be tolerant of it, the culture has already become a culture of death which includes many other social problems. The act of embracing same sex relationships is one of several final acts of a society that will not turn around their decline to death.
Strong cultures do not just succumb to outside forces, as strong cultures do not invite predators. They do not just simply decline for unknown reasons. The reasons are always plain as the nose on your face when looked at and researched. You really do your side a disservice by rambling on when all your proof is contradictory to the result you are implying.
I will say it again, same sex marriages will not destroy a nation. But it is first an indication that the nation is in decline. It is second an indication that the people no longer understand good morals and thus will be unable to turn their declining culture around. It is a symptom of a far worse disease rotting the core of the culture and the society it is built upon, and it is an additional burden that society will have pressing it ever downward.
Education, facts, and ability to think would do you much good.
You claim in your first comment that “in fact any celebration of same sex relationships would be detrimental to the whole of our society” and then not three days later you say “same sex marriages will not destroy a nation.” So which is it?
Since you’ve provided no research thus far that directly supports your conclusions, I’m free to believe that you are incredibly gullible and will continue to be full of fact-free hot air. When you’re done with this logicless rant of yours, if you believe acceptance of gays really is a sign of the decline of civilization, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale at a great price.
But first, just answer this one question: Who put it into your mind that tolerance causes the decline of civilizations?
You really are stupid. I thought maybe misinformed, or a bit misled. But now it is obvious that you are just plain incapable of understanding English. Detrimental does not equal to destroy as in no longer exist. Although, detrimental effects make it far easier for the whole of things happening in a culture end up accomplishing that. Detrimental does not equal destroy.
Just like your argument about Rome is still there, Yeah, but it is not the same Rome, a new culture replaced the old, and due to locality and the fact that most of the people were descended from the old Romans kept the name. But the culture is entirely new. It no longer practices the culture of death. In fact, now it is the most powerful force for the culture of life on the planet. (I personally do not like Catholicism, but the truth is the truth.) You do not understand the differences between words. Either that, or you are a very dishonest person, ignoring the meanings of words to imagine you can pull the wool over some peoples eyes.
Since you’ve provided no research thus far that directly supports your conclusions, I’m free to believe that you are incredibly gullible and will continue to be full of fact-free hot air. Your words fit nicely as a spear against your argument. Not one shred of evidence. I have the entirety of history as evidence.
“But first, just answer this one question: Who put it into your mind that tolerance causes the decline of civilizations?” Depends on what you tolerate and why. Would you tolerate a Muslim man raping your wife or same sex partner? He will not give you any tolerance, other than he might not kill you today if you tolerate his raping of your lover. That is his culture. Is that a culture equal to that of America? How about tolerating murder, it would take much self sacrifice to tolerate that, would it not? Would you tolerate a gang of thugs that come along daily and take 30% of your income for themselves? Of course not. Here is the kicker, you would not likely tolerate it if you and your loved ones were not the target either. So, why would I be tolerant of a group of culture of death people who want to prey upon the society I support with a culture of life? Diametrically opposed sides of the culture. I have no reason.
“There are a number of sources that consider celibacy a sexual perversion.”–Charlie Martin
Charlie makes a shrewd observation, IMO.
Celibacy is not the norm (at least not for people I know). Celibacy is a sexual behavior. Therefore, celibacy qualifies as a sexual perversion. I’m currently celibate. Therefore, it follows that I’m a pervert (on account of I’m engaging in an abnormal sexual practice).
So, what of it?
Do I fly into a rage and start hurling insults at Charlie, just because he made a good point? Do I start spewing lies about Charlie?
No, I don’t do those things…but, some folks sure do.
Not that I give a hoot what liars (and idiots, and fat hypocrites) like Bruce Majors and his ultra-dense pals have to say. They’re basically worthless (a waste of skin, as the saying goes), and so is the hogwash they’re spewing. And, if it comes right down to it, I can return their asinine insults with ease, I reckon.
So, it’s all good. I can have reasonable discussions with reasonable folks or I can tear into lying scum like Majors, and I’m happy either way.
Quislings and Kapos shouldn’t be allowed to participate in anything.
Social “conservatives” have fought against women’s suffrage, against ending slavery, against the integration of blacks/whites in schools, against interracial marriage, against the legality of abortion, against the legalization of same-sex behavior, against the legality of divorce, and finally against gay marriage.
You’ve lost, or are in the process, of losing *every single battle*. No matter how much you fear change or progress–life *is* change.
People are becoming less and less religious because far-right, reactionary evangelists give Christianity a bad name. Learn the lesson Americans have been teaching you for the past few hundred years: AMERICANS DON’T WANT A CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY!
The sad thing is, Americans are highly supportive of conservative economics. If the far-right Bachmanns and Palins didn’t scare off every sane moderate and independent, we’d be living in a much improved country.
In December 2008, I was at a meeting where we were told that under the new management of the Republican Party that Mr. Steele would be gone and that the stage was set to nominate Mitt Romney at the 2012 Convention. We were told that the Republican Committee controlled 85 votes. By the time Mr. Steele was removed that number increased to 93 votes. The person who told us this information claimed he was the ideological leader of the Republican Central Committee. Today he is on the Convention Committee. The stage is set for another globalist to take command from Obama; or worse yet it is a move designed to keep Obama in office regardless of how much the American people resent this man.
I think you give The Powers That Be too much credit by assuming they are some sort of monolithic faction that guides the course of global politics in one pre-planned direction. There are far too many competing factions with different agendas to make that happen, and lumping Obama in with some “globalist” cabal designed to thwart the interests of the American public is a bit ludicrous. The man was a leftist political activist and a constitutional law professor. If there’s one thing Vietnam should have taught us about the left, it’s that they’re capable of resenting authority just as much as us, not that they want to create some globalist power bloc.
The real threat’s the big multinational corporations, who’ve been sucking tax break after tax break and subsidy after subsidy out of the American economy until there’s nothing left of what you and I worked so hard to create for ourselves and our families. If anything, this particular President has been less friendly to them than the past two or three, though Congress has certainly been sucking up with the pork, per their usual habit. Think about it… if he were the friend/pawn/ally of the “globalists” (multinational corporations) then why would the Koch brothers—two very famous and very, very wealthy globalists—be so bent on throwing him out of office? Better the devil they know then the devil they don’t? Except that the Brothers Koch have a very large audience of willing Democans and Republicrats in Congress that are more than happy to suck up to them with our hard-earned income taxes.
I actually appreciated reading it. I have to check out more about this issue. I’m appreciating hard work you include your site, considering that it is great location where I am able to find out lot of helpful tips.