Homosexual "Conservative" Debates Farah at WND Conference

scottfactor.com ^ | 09/21/2010 | Gina Miller

[scottfactor]

World Net Daily's "Taking America Back" conference took place over the weekend in Miami. A number of passionate and powerfully informed conservatives were on hand, including Alan Keyes, Michele Bachmann, Joseph Farah, Tom Tancredo, Chuck Missler and many others. Dr. Michael Savage was reported to be in the lineup as well, but I have not yet seen any information about his speech, if he did attend. I wish I had been able to be there, but I'm going to have to settle for WND reports about the conference, and maybe some video, if any is released.

One of the highlights of the conference was the debate between WND's Joseph Farah and homosexual activist, Christopher Barron, who is the founder and chairman of the group GOProud, which purportedly is a "conservative" organization dedicated to advancing the homosexual agenda while ostensibly supporting certain conservative issues.

The reason the debate even occurred stems from WND's disinviting Ann Coulter from speaking at the conference after it was learned that she had agreed to speak for GOProud's Homocon event next Saturday in New York. This created a firestorm in the conservative world, with conservatives divided between those who support Ms. Coulter and the homosexuals and those who applauded Mr. Farah for his principled stand against the homosexual agenda's invasion of the conservative movement.

The topic of the debate was, “Is GOProud conservative?” I do not have a transcript of the entire debate between Mr. Farah and Mr. Barron, but I have the WND report on the event. In his opening comments, Mr. Farah said,

"Today I stand here in defense, quite literally, of God's law, the preservation of the institution of marriage as the union between one man and one woman, Western civilization, common sense, Judeo-Christian morality and the very definitions of the words 'conservative' and 'marriage' because both are under attack by my opponent. ... The conservative movement has been infiltrated by homosexual activists like Christopher Barron."

And according to WND,

"Barron presented a number of his group's stances on a variety of political issues to bolster his claim that GOProud is indeed conservative.

Some of them include support for cutting taxes, school choice, free-market health-care reform, the privatization of Social Security, fighting the spread of radical Islamic regimes, defense of Second Amendment rights, and opposing any effort to federalize marriage through a marriage amendment.

Regarding marriage, Barron asked, 'How many marriages have been damaged or destroyed by 'gay marriage?' My guess is not many. How many have been destroyed by divorce? A lot more.

'The real threat to marriage is divorce. I want to defend the institution of marriage because I believe in it,' Barron continued, 'Why aren't we pushing for amendments state by state repealing no-fault divorce? It's bad for women, and it's especially bad for children.'"

Since I don’t have the video or transcript of the debate, I’m not going to give an opinion on who “won” it. According to WND’s article, the opinions on who won were mixed, with some attendees saying Mr. Barron won and some siding with Mr. Farah—probably most sided with Mr. Farah.

Aside from the debate at the conference and GOProud’s very questionable conservatism (after all they support hate crimes legislation, open homosexuality in our military, and homosexual marriage—things antithetical to conservatism), what is happening within the conservative movement regarding the “mainstreaming” of homosexuality is a very disturbing trend. More and more so-called conservatives are buying into the homosexual activists’ propaganda. More are being taken in by some of the terminology like “marriage equality.” That term alone is completely bogus. There is no such thing as a marriage between two people of the same sex, and there never could be.

I realize some conservatives who support such things as homosexual “marriage” may not be Christians, but those conservatives who support it that are Christians, really need to take a hard look at what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. The Word of God could not be more clear on this. Homosexuality is a sin and an abomination to God, plain and simple.

Since God views homosexuality that way, how can anyone believe people are born as homosexuals? Why would God condemn a behavior if it’s an immutable characteristic like skin color or shoe size? It’s not an immutable characteristic; it’s a bad behavior choice! The Bible does make clear that the sins of our forefathers are passed down through several generations, so sin tendencies and the curse of sins can run in our blood, so to speak, but we’re not wild animals who have no control over our behavior. If homosexuality were not a chosen bad behavior, God would not have such strong words against it.

This issue is one on which conservatives must not be deceived. The homosexual agenda goes hand-in-hand with the leftist-socialist agenda, part of which is to destroy the building block of society, the family. Tear the family down as an institution, and replace it with the mother state. Many people don’t understand the importance of how dangerous the push to redefine marriage truly is.

Mr. Farah, writing in an opinion piece on September 4^th, put it this way,

“If we lose the battle over marriage, I'm not sure there's much left to preserve. Marriage is literally the building block of our civilization. Destroy it and you destroy the foundation.

The enemy knows this.

Do our so-called allies?

I am ashamed of these people who should know better flirting with the destruction of a 6,000-year-old, God-created institution with no regard for the unforeseen and unimaginable consequences.

That's why I will not be silent. I will not go quietly into the night.

…There is no middle ground on this issue.

Either you believe the Bible or you don't.

If you don't, there are consequences. If you do, you are obligated to take a stand for righteousness. Of course, there are worldly consequences for that, too – for some apparently too great to accept.

Followers of Jesus have a choice: They can please God or please men. They can accept God's laws, which are not burdensome, and obey them, or they can reject them and try to tickle the ears of men. They can offend God or offend men.

But followers of Jesus cannot find some happy medium where they can please God and please the world. Nobody can.

I choose obedience.”

Well-said, Mr. Farah.

[EQAndyBuzz]

There are Conservative gays, there are liberal gays. While we can say that being gay automatically makes someone a liberal, we can also say that it is pretty certain the Conservative gay isn’t going to the San Francisco Holloween parade dressed as Ru Paul.

I think the question is, despite their “lifestyle choice” does believing in fiscal responsibility, a strong military, secure borders and the laws given us welcome them into the tent?

[999replies]

I think the question is, despite their “lifestyle choice” does believing in fiscal responsibility, a strong military, secure borders and the laws given us welcome them into the tent?

A person living as a homosexual can only pretend to be a conservative. If you are going against God's laws, you are going against the very basis of what conservatism is.

[trisham]

bump

[EQAndyBuzz]

“A person living as a homosexual can only pretend to be a conservative. If you are going against God’s laws, you are going against the very basis of what conservatism is. “

I get that. But politically do you want this person in your tent?

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"I think the question is, despite their “lifestyle choice” does believing in fiscal responsibility, a strong military, secure borders and the laws given us welcome them into the tent?"

I say yes. Question, if someone were a single male who had many sex partners but believed the above, would we kick that person out of the tent? What about a serial adulterer? These are both also against God's laws. Being immoral, be it gay, philander whatever is a personal failure that you have to work out.

[aSeattleConservative]

I say yes. Question, if someone were a single male who had many sex partners but believed the above, would we kick that person out of the tent? What about a serial adulterer? These are both also against God's laws. Being immoral, be it gay, philander whatever is a personal failure that you have to work out.

There's a huge difference between struggling with sin (which we all do) and flaunting it.

If an adulterer entered my "tent" wanting to redefine important American institutions such as marriage, the family, religion, education, the military and youth mentor groups BASED ON HIS CHOSEN BEHAVIOR, you can bet your bottom dollar he wouldn't be welcome ANYWHERE around this conservative.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Not all homosexuals believe in homosexual marriage, gays in the military etc...

[aSeattleConservative]

Not all homosexuals believe in homosexual marriage, gays in the military etc...

That's a good start. Now let's work on the homosexual part, something God says is an "abomination" and "detestable", and our Founding Fathers described as "a disgrace to human nature".

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"That's a good start. Now let's work on the homosexual part, something God says is an "abomination" and "detestable", and our Founding Fathers described as "a disgrace to human nature"."

From a religious perspective, I agree with you. From a perspective of being a good United States Citizen, I think you can still be a good citizen and be a homosexual. Just like you can be a good U.S. Citizen and be an adulterer, a philanderer, etc. I don't think you can be a good United States Citizen if you are a Marxist and want to confiscate someone's wealth to give it to someone else, no matter if you are a practicing Christian or not...

[aSeattleConservative]

From a religious perspective, I agree with you. From a perspective of being a good United States Citizen, I think you can still be a good citizen and be a homosexual. Just like you can be a good U.S. Citizen and be an adulterer, a philanderer, etc. I don't think you can be a good United States Citizen if you are a Marxist and want to confiscate someone's wealth to give it to someone else, no matter if you are a practicing Christian or not...

It's interesting how you like to "pick and choose" which of God's laws you want to enforce. You look the other way on "a man shall not lie with a man as he lies a woman", but get pretty perked up on the "thou shalt not steal" one.

Prosperity came to our nation BECAUSE of our Christian/Judeo values; we're losing prosperity BECAUSE we're rapidly straying away from those values.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"It's interesting how you like to "pick and choose" which of God's laws you want to enforce."

There are no peculularities at all about it. I'm not trying to impose God's laws on any American Citizen. I know how to differentiate between imposing my personal moral views on the country and imposing the views of the Constitution and our Founding Fathers on United States Citizens. While it is true, we are a nation founded upon Christianity, not everyone in the nation is Christian. However, all legal Citizens are Citizens of the United States and are subject to it's founding documents.

I do believe we need to live moral lives and there are ways to impose morality on society through societal norms. For instance, society should view women having babies out of wedlock as a moral sin or homosexuality as something wrong, sinful and out of the norm. However, I would not want to have laws outlawing either. Then we would become like the Islamo Fascists we are fighting against.

[Vaduz]

Gay conservative + Rhino = agenda

[Old Teufel Hunden]

In short, what you do in your personal life that affects only you (homosexuality, philandering, lying etc..) should not be outlawed. What you do that has a direct affect on other people (theft) should be outlawed. That’s the consequences of living in a free society. Increased freedom means increased responsibility. Who is the better child, one who does the right thing only because their parent told them they have to, or one that does the right thing because their parent has taught them right from wrong and they have made a conscious choice to do right?

[Truthsearcher]

We don’t kick anyone out of the tent, but we make it clear that they can’t bring their trash into the tent.

A gay person who is pro-defense, pro-fiscal conservatism, etc, are welcome to vote with us, but he is not welcome to try to change our basic tenets.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"We don’t kick anyone out of the tent, but we make it clear that they can’t bring their trash into the tent."

I agree. If they want to do that, go see the Democrat party. They'll say you can bring your ideas into the tent and then vote the socialist line anyways....

[aSeattleConservative]

There are no peculularities at all about it. I'm not trying to impose God's laws on any American Citizen.

You did earlier. "Thou shalt not steal" is one of God's 10 Commandments.

I know how to differentiate between imposing my personal moral views on the country and imposing the views of the Constitution and our Founding Fathers on United States Citizens.

In order to understand the Constitution, one must first read the other writings of the Founding Fathers. One of my favorites is from John Adams who said:

"Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

The quotes by the Founding Fathers on the importance of virtue are aplenty. Here's one from Samuel Adams:

"A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader."

When we talk about the Founding Fathers and law we're talking about the following:

Law ultimately has a moral base. The moral base that the founding fathers of this country applied was not the moral base of secular humanism or the moral base of atheism or even the moral base of deism. The vast majority of the framers of our Constitutional system were church-going, professing Christians. Dr. M E. Bradford of the University of Dallas researched their church membership and found that 28 of those 55 delegates were Episcopalian, 8 were Presbyterians, 7 were Congregationalists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Dutch-reformed, 2 were Methodist, and 2 were Roman-Catholic. There's one, McClurg of Virginia, that Bradford couldn't find anything about and I haven't either. There just isn't much written about him. And Bradford discovered that just 3 out 55 could be called deist or skeptics. They were only about six percent of the delegates. Not only were those founding fathers actively affiliated with Christian churches, but they looked to the Bible as their primary source of authority. That should not be surprising Most of them learned to read using the Bible. Most of them attended church regularly and they heard the Bible preached for several hours every Sunday morning in those days.
Link to Citizens for a Constitutional Republic

Now let's look at how the Founding Fathers looked at homosexuality, as well as the laws legislated against them:

"It can be safely said that the attitude of the Founders on the subject of homosexuality was precisely that given by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws--the basis of legal jurisprudence in America and heartily endorsed by numbers of significant Founders. In addressing sodomy (homosexuality), he found the subject so reprehensible that he was ashamed even to discuss it. Nonetheless, he noted: "Because of the nature of the crime, the penalties for the act of sodomy were often severe. For example, Thomas Jefferson indicated that in his home state of Virginia, "dismemberment" of the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. In fact, Jefferson himself authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration. The laws of the other states showed similar or even more severe penalties:

That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead.
NEW YORK
Link to Founding Fathers and Homosexuality

I do believe we need to live moral lives and there are ways to impose morality on society through societal norms. For instance, society should view women having babies out of wedlock as a moral sin or homosexuality as something wrong, sinful and out of the norm. However, I would not want to have laws outlawing either. Then we would become like the Islamo Fascists we are fighting against.

While women having children out of wedlock is a serious matter (one of the many reasons for the breakdown of the nuclear family), homosexuality has always been looked at throughout history as a "lifestyle that every major world religion and thousands of years of history have held to be immoral and destructive from a spiritual and emotional -- and certainly a physical standpoint." Up until a few decades ago, when the sodomites intimidated their way into having the American Psychiatric Association remove homosexuality from it's list of mental disorders, homosexuality was a felony in every State.
Link to US Sodomy Laws

Drop the "Islamo Fascist" crapola; "Liberaltarians" (like yourself) and their social policies are more like Islam's when it comes to homosexuality and the treatment of women and children.
Link to Islam and homosexuality/pedophilia

[aSeattleConservative]

In short, what you do in your personal life that affects only you (homosexuality, philandering, lying etc..) should not be outlawed. What you do that has a direct affect on other people (theft) should be outlawed. That’s the consequences of living in a free society. Increased freedom means increased responsibility. Who is the better child, one who does the right thing only because their parent told them they have to, or one that does the right thing because their parent has taught them right from wrong and they have made a conscious choice to do right?

Congratulations, you're the one millionth L/libertarian that I've debated. Your "award" for being the millionth is the same as the 999,999 before you, I'll show you where your ideology is terribly flawed.

Your L/libertarian "what I do with my own body is my business/ there is no immoral behavior as long as there is consent involved/your rights end where your fist and my nose meet" does not trump the Laws of God.

Your definition of "freedom" is different than a Christian's. While L/libertarians think that abortion, prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, suicide and getting hiiiigh on drugs are acts of "freedom", for a Christian those are acts of slavery.

Regarding your analogy using children: Of course society will benefit more from the citizen that doesn't need government law to enforce his or her moral behavior. However, without the threat of the sword by the civil magistrate, those that don't follow the teachings of Christ and the Laws of God will only run rampant, causing chaos and anarchy to prevail.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Your definition of "freedom" is different than a Christian's. While L/libertarians think that abortion, prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, suicide and getting hiiiigh on drugs are acts of "freedom", for a Christian those are acts of slavery."

You are assuming a lot about me. You know what happens when you ASSume don't you? Where did I ever say that I thought it should be legal to get high on drugs, abortion, etc...

As for suicide, well if you would like to prosecute a person who successfully commits suicide, go for it. As for those who fail to commit suicide, if you would like to prosecute them instead of getting them help, I would say that is not very Christian of you. Someone who is so messed up that they would attempt suicide does not need your type of Christianity.

I understand that stealing is against Chrisianity. However, it was part of legal jurispendence in many ancient societies long before the 10 commandments came along. You like to quote the founding fathers about mixing Christianity and our government. Well, I'll give you a few quotes of my own.

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

Thomas Jefferson

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people."

"It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspiciously corroboates the disproof of both opinions."

"Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us."

James Madison

The overarching theme of our founders was that they were mainly spritual men and most of them Christian men. However, in the affairs of government, they did not believe that the government should impose "Christian" views on the people. That is an abergation of the people's liberties. You sir are the one that is acting like these Islamo Fascists. You would kindly be called a Christian Fascist. Using the force of the state to impose religious views on people.

For instance, you believe abortion is wrong on religious grounds. I believe it is wrong on moral and legal grounds. You see, the Declaration of Independence says that Governments are instituted among men to secure the rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. If there is conclusive scientific evidence to prove that it is actually a baby and not some mass of tissue in the womb of a woman,(which I believe there is) then the government has a duty to protect it's life.

If your pursuit of happiness is to be a man and live with another then the government should protect that. It doesn't mean that the government has to give them special priviledges or extra rights (such as changing the definition of marriage). It means that they should be able to live and work without being physically assaulted or discriminated against because they are gay.

The moment a government starts to enforce it's power on people with the goal in mind of forcing them to observe specific religious sects, be it Muslim or Christian. It is wrong and an aborgation of people's liberties.

[aSeattleConservative]

You are assuming a lot about me...

I only go with what information you've provided me with here. Define "freedom" then.

As for suicide, well if you would like to prosecute a person who successfully commits suicide, go for it.

I'm not aware of anyone being "jailed" for attempted suicide. However, based on our Christian/Judeo heritage and laws, human life was held up to a higher standard, and those that wanted to end it were deemed mentally ill and placed BY THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE (i.e. courts) in institutions that could help them (mental hospitals).

I understand that stealing is against Chrisianity. However, it was part of legal jurispendence in many ancient societies long before the 10 commandments came along.

Many ancient societies had variations of what was "moral". For instance, as a fellow FReeper posted in another thread dealing with morality:

"Who gets to define what is good, moral, charitable, evil, etc.? You? Me? MTV? A Saddam? A Stalin?
To ancient Aztecs - cutting out the still beating heart of a human sacrifices (including children) was the highest order of good.
To a large percent of Muslims - killing, raping and enslaving infidels is the highest order of good. To Hindus - Attacking, ignoring, prejudicing against and letting die for people in lower order castes is perfectly good.
To certain Pacific Tribes - eating your enemy was the highest form of good."

Christianity has set the worldwide STANDARD for morality, not man's moral relativism.

For future reference, please don't go to atheist.com and get out of context quotes from various Founding Fathers. I've spent too much time studying them to fall for such deceit.

If you're interested in learning about the real Founding Fathers, I'd suggest the 1,067 page book entitled:

... Using the force of the state to impose religious views on people.

What is the purpose of the state in your Libertarian mind? (if any).

"All law commands human action; it seeks either to restrain or to urge particular actions. It necessarily says either "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not," and it backs these commands to action or restraint with coercion, with sanctions enforced by the power of the sword. The sword and the word are united in law. And because the word commands action by men, the word of law is necessarily a morel teaching, a teaching which seeks to guide the ruled along a particular way of action, of life. This way of life which the law-word commands is what the ruler or lawgiver considers good, and for this reason it is again inevitably a moral teaching, of one sort or another."
Link to Civil Government: The Neglected Ministry

You see, the Declaration of Independence...

You're using a document written by the Founding Fathers that recognized that rights come from the "Creator" (note the capital C), not government. You're in essence using a religious document to try and make your point.

It means that they [homosexuals] should be able to live and work without being physically assaulted or discriminated against because they are gay.

It's unfortunate that you, like so many others, put sexual deviants into a "category". They're not some "group", they're individuals that are struggling with a perversion. As far as them being assaulted: we have laws against individuals being assaulted, whether they practice a sexual perversion or not.

The moment a government starts to enforce it's power on people with the goal in mind of forcing them to observe specific religious sects, be it Muslim or Christian. It is wrong and an aborgation of people's liberties.

You're confusing the government enforcing a "state religion" with that of enforcing a moral code. So that you don't continue to make a fool out of yourself by comparing Christianity and Islam, let me share a website that might help you with your confusion:
Link to Christianity vs Islam