Challenge Accepted: Conservative gay organization head agrees to debate WorldNetDaily editor

The Daily Caller ^ | September 4, 2010 Updated September 5, 2010 | Chris Moody

[Darksheare]

Agreed.
The smell of pro-homo-troll is heavy in here.

[Stultis]

You keep pushing the homosexual agenda yet claim there is no agenda.

I explained my view on this in #590, and pinged you at the time.

I don't believe there is (i.e. validly is) anything such thing as THE homosexual agenda. (Is that degree of emphasis sufficient?) Just the same as I don't believe there is any such thing as, for instance, "the" black agenda. IOW I refuse to cede to the radical, revolutionary left the right to preemptively define "the" sole and only valid and possible agenda for any demographic or identity group.

You disagree. Apparently you think that homosexuals can't possibly be genuinely conservative, ever. I can no longer affirmatively argue the contrary position, being inhibited by the rules, but suffice to say we disagree.

Once again, "disagreeing with Darksheare" is not equal to "lying".

You're welcome to try again, as you may choose, but don't strain yourself on my account. In fact I'd like to thank you very much for the clarification you have already provided! I now have a very clear picture of the basis on which you called me a liar.

[Jim Robinson]

Look, you can either knock off the bullshit or leave FR. The choice is yours. There will be no further discussion on the matter.

[samtheman]

Nothing is stopping them from being Republicans or Tea Partiers. It’s the term “conservative” they’re trying to for some reason co-opt. Why? What is so important about claiming that term? It’s not theirs to claim. They’re not conservative. They should not claim to be.

But they LIKE co-opting terms.

[little jeremiah]

Like “gay”, and rainbows.