Posted on 02/19/2010 5:51:20 PM PST by icwhatudo
The speaker, Ryan Sorba, was introduced to talk about his experiences with the ACORN investigation. Before he could even say a word the boos started from the assorted gay activists in the crowd. (Sorba is a frequent critic of the homosexual lifestyle).
Note that only AFTER the boos began did Sorba change the subject to condemning CPAC for inviting GOProud to CPAC.
He became flustered as any young man in such a situation would be on national TV, at a supposedly "conservative" event, being booed by homosexual activists...but his response that "Lesbians at Smith college protest better than you do" was pretty funny.
He might be. There is some good speakers but not many.
It’s human nature to try to justify what one does. That means homosexuals naturally attempt to justify their perversion to themselves and others. It’s only natural for them to feel hurt when someone speaks against them. No one likes to be told they are doing something wrong.
That is why homosexuals (in general) will never stop trying to find acceptance. They will never stop trying to eliminate or shut down the opposition. The question is what do the rest of us do about it? Do we accept the morally bankrupt view that anything adults choose to do is “moral” and acceptable?
Would we choose to make thievery moral if a band of thieves organized politically? Would we choose to make adultery moral if adulterers formed a PAC? I should hope not.
There is nothing new under the sun, and people are capable of doing nearly anything. We can argue over the scope of government, whether or not it should endorse and encourage socially beneficial behaviors like marriage. That’s not the same thing as deciding whether or not a particular activity is moral.
When the Republican party and/or conservatives start beseeching people based on group categories defined by race, color, sex, gay or straight status, religion, or ethnicity, they DESTROY that image of representing an ideal whose strength is in the very fact that it TRANSCENDS all those things and makes them wholly irrelevant.
The image projected will be a false image. If they come to the party expecting that it's even appropriate to refer to their being gay, or a minority, or any other thing other than being a HUMAN endowed with certain inalienable rights, then they will be coming to the party on false pretenses, and that will harm the party's image.
You are right saying there is nothing new under the sun. We’ve been dealing with this for thousands of years. I would also like to paraphrase our founders. Our constitution will work for a moral people and no one else.
Lev 18:22-23 “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” Lev 20:13 “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.” 1 Cor 6:9 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals” 1 Tim 1:9-10 “realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers” Rom 1:26-27 “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”
No way should homosexual activists be a part of a conservative gathering.
I think Meghan looks good like that. How long does she leave the duct tape on? During meals?
All of that is right. But don’t you think that our image is also damaged when some of us shout about Sodomites? I mean, isn’t that “fire and brimstone” approach doing the movement the same disservice by identifying it with one group?
I guess I’m trying to say I agree totally that “The concept [of conservatism] necessarily transcends an individual’s race, color, sex, gay or straight status, religion, or ethnicity. The very thing that makes it profound is because all of those things are irrelevant. It is the beauty of the limited government consevative ethic.” I just don’t think that were there yet because we’ve got frayed ends. One side is GOProud, the other is shouting “Sodomite!” That’s why the only solution seems like a neutralization of this issue somehow.
The made their homosexuality the issue. He let them know what he thinks of their lifestyle choice. And he nailed them with the simple, brutal truth.
If they would have shut up and let him speak at the outset, he would have been telling a story about an ACORN sting in Bakersfield.
Feline_AIDS: “That’s why the only solution seems like a neutralization of this issue somehow.”
I’m glad you wrote that. This is the modern, centrist position. If all morality is subjective, neither side is right, therefore the discussion should be neutralized so as to not offend anyone.
It’s simply not possible to do as you say, and even if it was, all morality is NOT equal. Some activities are good and moral. Others are destructive and immoral. I submit that government exists to encourage the good and resist the evil, because some activities build up society and others destroy it.
Hey CitizenUSA, first of all, thanks for the civil response. 2nd, I don’t operate under the assumption that all morality is subjective (though I know much of our society is influenced by postmodern thinking to believe it is). I think we’re right and they’re wrong.
BUT I’m not sure this is a battle we’re going to win, so I think we should focus on the rising tide of socialism. We should take away the state’s power, which I think will ultimately weaken the homosexual agenda’s power as well.
We should aim for the head of the dragon, not one of its arms.
You make a valid point, but I’m not ready to surrender the sexual morality issue simply because we might not win. If we believe something is good, then we should fight for it!
Plus, this isn’t a war of limited material resources. It’s a battle for hearts and minds. I’m not taking anything away from the battle against socialism by saying homosexuality is wrong.
The battle against socialism is also a battle based on morality by the way. I oppose socialism for the simple reason that no person has the right to another person’s property. Socialism is government-sanctioned stealing.
This fits what I was saying earlier. It’s government’s job to encourage the good and discourage the bad. Socialism fails that. In fact, socialism rewards evil.
I don't consider GOProud "one side" of the conservative movement because it is an oxymoron -- the very existence of GOProud is the antithesis of conservative principle. The same holds true for black conservative groups, hispanic conservative groups, women's conservative groups, etc. They are in principle the antithesis of the essence of limited government conservatism whose principles transcend groups and apply equally to all.
I interviewed a very successful, highly-placed woman architect about 20 years ago who was preparing to retire after a distinguished career; by her own merits, she had reached a pinnacle in an arena dominated by men. My editor wanted me to be sure to get her take on women in architecture, wanted me to ask what professional women's groups she belonged to, and about her involvement in women-in-architecture associations in particular. The architect's answer to me was short and sweet. She said that she belonged to professional architect groups, but no women's groups of any kind because she didn't see any value or point in them. She said: "There's really only one thing that's important: Are you a professional, or not?"
Same with the movement's "image." There's really only one thing that's important: Are you a conservative or not?
As for some of "us" shouting about Sodomites, again, there would be no shouting if said Sodomites respected their own as well as others' dignity, kept a private behavior to themselves, and accepted responsibility for the risk they take in volunteering information on an aspect of their personal lives that has no bearing on conservative principle. The only reason some conservatives are answering with shouts of "Sodomites!" is because they've been asked.
Very, very well stated.
Aw, gee, thanks. Such kind words mean a lot to me, but even more, it means a lot to me that there are others who see this as I do.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2133233/posts
Vocal Gay Republicans Upsetting Conservatives
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/920915/posts
New Liberal Group Hopes to Be "As influential as the MRC"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1128748/posts
BLOGGERGATE: Hillary Leads Army of Paid Bloggers
When "what they do in their bedrooms" leads to untold BILLIONS in medical costs that get paid out of company funds, and out of MY pocket, it ceases being a "private matter".
When they come out of the bedroom and seek to corrupt or molest MY children, it ceases being a "private matter". When they come out of their bedrooms and seek to infest the armed forces, ruining morale and acting as a trojan horse for perfumed princes who are more interested in PC posturing than in winning wars, it ceases to be a "private matter."
The real agenda of homosexuals is (ultimately) throw off all shackles on sexual activity, including bestiality and pedophilia. No, not every lisping fairy queen hairdresser wants this, but the movers and shakers (and the Gramscians who provide the air time, coverage, and a lot of the funding to those promoting the perversion) DO.
Why did you fall for the "privacy" bullshit? Are you queer, or do you have close friends and relatives who have corrupted your mind?
Or are you just a child like the McCain girl, who thinks it's "trendy" and "très chic" etc.?
Cheers!
Yeah, I have no idea why she’s pulling for Romney either. WTF does he have right with him that McCain doesn’t have wrong, too? She savages McCain and then ROMNEY’s her boy? Why? It makes no sense that she is the leader of the raise-hell hard right activist and then pulls for a moderate like Romney. None.
Rumor has it, notwithstanding her tough writing, she is quite tolerant of gays and liberals socially. Maybe that’s true, and she’s gotten to the point of letting it spill over into her politics.
“We should have a new message to gays: we oppose gay marriage on Constitutional grounds. We do not hate you, and you don’t need to hate us.”
Oh, so conservatives should have a new message to gays that we oppose gay marriage at the federal level, and leave it to our constituencies to choose their own course at the state level? Then we should have taken that course with other civil rights issues, too, then. Too late for that. You federalize civil rights or privileges for some, you’re stuck with the battle for federalizing them for all.
If they’re going to make the argument you make, conservatives should also fight to remove marriage from the tax code entirely. And they should fight to end federal civil rights legislation.
Fat chance on either of those things happening.
Agreed - it appears Coulter is more RINO than Conservative.
It’s really sad, too, because she’s been such a leader for us in so many fights where she’s been the flagbearer. Yet she feel like a ROMNEY can be a leader for her own brand of politics? Doesn’t square unless there’s something we’re missing about her politics, and that to me is the real issue with her now. Since she obviously has a hidden agenda here, given her disagreement with Romney-like politics in others, it’s hard to see her opinion as trustworthy.
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.