Posted on 12/28/2009 5:31:52 PM PST by mountainbunny
How is the claim that homosexuality is normal a part of a “Christian value of man’s humanity to man”???
You have not be arguing for any type of humane treatment but have instead been arguing that homosexuality is normal and that it has a place in the conservative movement. It does not.
I see they have sucked you in.
Don't fall for it.
yitbos
*Mark Kirk ping*
Kirk is my congressman. I don’t care whether he’s gay. I dislike him because he’s pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-spending increases, pro-tax increases, pro-illegal alien, and anti-Iraq surge.
I hope that Kirk will lose his primary to Don Lowery, a conservative who has been a judge and a state’s attorney. His site is www.JudgeLowery4USSenate.com.
Amen all of that - thank you!
“There are plenty of people in Illinois without jobs right now. The economy is in the toilet and people are nervous about national security. Congress and the White House are preparing to pass the largest social program in the history of the United States.
Those should be the only topics of conversation. Not rumors.”
What are you going to say if the rumors prove true? The John Edwards love child affair started out as rumors too, and we all know how that ended up. It was true.
I wonder if he has a chance at winning? He used to write articles about BHO's missing birth certificate all the time.
If he is a poofer, better to find out now. Except the idiots in the Ill. GOP probably count that as a plus.
Likewise, I admit the RNC/GOP can invite anyone it wants into their Big Tent...I won't be joining them, though. I'll stand out in the elements with those who still adhere to conservative core values, and according to the Rasmussen poll, that's the majority of the country. Not that it matters, because I'd stand out here even if it were just me.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
If the rumors are true, then the accuser should step up with evidence. Otherwise, it’s nothing but that... rumors.
I wouldn’t vote for either of them so I don’t have a horse in this race, but I do find the whole thing tone deaf in light of the state of our Nation.
If its true, prove it. If its not, it’s in poor taste.
Arthur Finkelstein. A lot of Republicans in Congress owed their careers to him.
Andy Martin has a history of attacking people’s sex lives, it seems. Even if one doesn’t want Mark Kirk as the nominee, that doesn’t mean they should support Marin.
“Saying someone is a conservative homosexual is like saying the water is hot-cold, or that you family pet is a cat-dog. You can’t be one and still be the other. Morality and family values are cornerstones of the conservative philosophy, as much as property rights, fiscal responsibility, gun owners’ rights, a strong military, etc. To say someone is a homosexual conservative is akin to saying they’re an anti-gun conservative, or a tax and spend conservative.”
Well, the truth is that many libertarians are 100% anti-statist, 100% anti-Marxist conservatives, and some of them would say that “social” conservatives are not REAL conservatives because they would willingly use the state to deny liberty, when the means, whatever means, justified a “social values” end that social conservatives gave a high priority to;
just as there are social conservatives who say many libertarians are not REAL conservatives because THEIR priority of “laissez faire” economics is too welcoming to any economic enterprise, no matter how unsavory, from a “social values” point of view.
Now then, in the same vein, one could try to claim that everyone who is “gay” is a 100% card-carrying member of the “gay agenda”, in all its permutations, socially and politically - and yet, that would be as false as when some conservatives say some other conservatives are not REALLY conservative.
There is a spectrum of conservative values and most conservatives understand that and know that there is not a common litmus test that all conservatives would acknowledge, 100%.
There are many “gay” “conservatives”. They are not on the public radar screen precisely because they find themselves with little or nothing in common with what “gay” advocates and the worst critics of “gays” would both call the “gay agenda”.
To say that “gay” and “conservative” are incompatible terms is to believe a falsehood - that one particular
litmus test composed of one set of positions, political and social, would be agreed on 100% by 100% of conservatives. It wouldn’t.
On the base topic of this thread alone, I will state my position most clearly: that if Mr. Kirk is hiding something, it is not particularly wrong to expose what it is he is hiding; but, with or without that factor, and whether or not the rumors are true, there is enough in Kirk’s history that shows that he might be a conservative only in the Johnny-come-lately opportunistic sense, and that alone is enough reason to oppose him; and that provides enough ammunition for “real” conservatives to “expose” him with. Meanwhile, let the Dims do the mudslinging.
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.