Posted on 08/12/2011 8:04:40 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Yup. He was trying to walk a fine line betwixt and between and he fell off.
Caring about how a politician views homosexual behavior is not in the slightest “superficial,” because a whole array of public policy decisions follow from what might seem like an irrelevant personal opinion.
Me either.
Jeezz....give the guy a break......how superficial can you people be.
Sorry, Can’t do it and there is nothing superficial about it.
The Boehner debt ceiling “deal” will result in Supercommittee deadlock or establishment Republicans giving in. Either way, the defense budget will be gutted. I have to wonder what committee or support West was offered to go along with this. I’m extremely disappointed, but the lesson is and always will be not to put your faith in man.
The man believes that homosexuality is a bad choice and just became a little tongue tied in his responses.
It is very superficial to base one's support of a solid American patriot and conservative on one little comment. This is sound bite thinking and very stupid to say the least.
Is that clear enough for you?
Pathetic response, Mr. West.
West is not 100% pro-life.
West sees homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, and not necessarily a bad one.
West joined the Congressional Black Caucus.
West voted against defunding ObamaCare.
West voted for the Pigford black farmer reparations.
West voted repeatedly to raise the debt ceiling by trillions of dollars.
Maybe one or two of those points might be “no big deal” but taken together, they tell me that West is not for me.
True.
...and normal people have the right to not be creeped out.
Not true. There are more than enough leftists agitating to enshrine not being offended as a civil right, without conservatives helping them out.
Fair enough. But based on his life and experiences I think he is an asset to conservatives in Congress. The sum total of the man is what attracts me to him. Not for president maybe, but as a fundamentally decent, conservative and pro American congressman. There comes a time when we all need to accept that we have to have many bricks in the house we are building...and some may be better than others
So it's all good, to him. He's dead to me.
Actually, he said something that gays hate to hear: that they can change. He said he wasn’t urging it, but he said that it was possible.
Their whole “movement” is based on this being something they are born with, like a genetic defect, but it has been shown time and again that much of the behavior is the result of circumstances around them (a weird family, some event such as being molested as a child, etc.) and can be changed.
All of the above are why he is dead to me.
Too bad, I had hopes that he would turn out to be a true conservative.
Now I see that the word “conservative” means as little as “Republican”.
“Constitutionalist” is now what is valuable - someone who adheres to Constitutional principles and sees government in that way; anything else is handbasket to hell, a bit slower or a bit faster, no matter what the label or party.
This must be West’s wide stance, straddling the ol’ fence on this issue.
(Is this satire, by the way?)
Normal people have the right to not associate with homosexuals or have them teach in schools, be forced into contact with them in the military, attend “sensitivity” training about them, etc.
IOW, homosexuals should, by natural law, go back into their freaking closets.
OK, MEEEchelleO.
Sorry, but he just bought the ranch with his stupid statement!
It hasn't ocurred to him yet that a culture of disordered disease-vector sex derangement --- directed purposefully and strategically at our kids --- is more serious than a choice of chocolate or vanilla?
Who's superficial here?
[ Actually, he said something that gays hate to hear: that they can change. He said he wasn’t urging it, but he said that it was possible. ]
I think his response is quite shrewd, because it is about behavior.
It pretty much says, the goverment should not tell you what ice cream to eat and how much, or who you can’t snog and how much snoggign you can do. But it can have dire health consequences. While being a glutton today is “socially unacceptable”, then why not other behavior that has negative health consequences? This opens the door to put it back into the “Social Stigma” category where it belongs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.