Obviously...
Posted on 02/24/2010 1:44:54 PM PST by Steelfish
Which isn’t just a comforting sounding nicety.
Couldn't help but notice you left out one key plank: strength of the family, our fundamental social unit.Agreed - I didn't call it out, but that is part of the 'tolerate others', wouldn't you agree?
Believe it or not, I know some pro-family gays. They believe in family as a society value even though they are not married themselves. Many go unmarried for various reasons (Priests, for example). That does not necessarily make them anti-family.
They came and sat in MY pew and ruined my church (Episcopal), and I left. Now they want to come to my party ... and ruin that too? They are LIBERALS. The Dems would welcome them. I had enough “experience” with creeping progressivism ... I don’t need any more to say NO.
Great, another “hit piece” designed to conquer and divide the GOP. Why post this drivel?
Obviously...
We want you young man!... Be a queer "conservative"... It's the future...
Guess that depends entirely on how one defines "family", and whether it's "pro-family" to push the notion that there is an equal alternative to a male and female having and raising children, doesn't it?
Sorry my friends
Hate to be crass
Butt, their favorite place
Would be up your ***
ROLF!... And THAT is a very uncomfortable thought... :)
You can strongly support DOMA and still say I appreciate a gay patriot who realizes Islamic law would be death for him or her. [BTW, one of the 4 leaders of the defense of flight 93 was gay. His partner walked out on the San Francisco hate-America fest that the locals turned his memorial into]
I have noticed that, on threads about the second amendment, most commentators welscome the support of the "Pink Pistols." That doesn't mean you have to change your mind on either morality or law as it applies to homosexuals -- it just means you shouldn't automatically assume that every single person who is a homosexual supports any particular part of the political "gay agenda."
If not throwing gays in jail is part of that agenda, then I assume they all would. If "special employment rights" or "gay marriage" is part of that agenda, I wouldn't assume it at all.
By polling, 26% of gays supportd Bush in 2004 (and I bet way more than that supported Reagan in 1980 and 1984.)
I would say to those folks, and any more who would join them: We'll agree sometimes, we'll disagree sometimes, but I welcome your support when we agree and your vote for a candidate I like.
The problem with your hypothesis is the “enemy of my enemy ...’ theory.
During WW II many communist groups in europe were used as friends only to find out after the war they were just using the ties to solidify their power structure and were going to attack whoever won.
the homosexual groups have an extensive history of being lock step with the democrats. (see the “cabin” republicans who just changed their name)
It IS right to reject help which is premised on simply accepting the enemies agenda.
“”Quite frankly, any person who is for government fiscal restraint, limited government, states rights and believes that issues like sexual orientation are personal matters that should not be shoved down others throats; who only ask for tolerance and return the same to those they disagree with should be welcome in the GOP.”””
Why did you fail to mention marriage between a man and a woman as a major tenet of the GPO?
Is that an inconvenient truth?
Sorry but homosexuals will have a hard time adjusting to conservative social values.
I’m not sure I understand how “BEING” a homosexual is “being part of the enemy’s agenda.”
I remember when the homosexuals did not want anyone telling them what to do in their bedrooms. And I am fine with that. I just wish they would keep their perversions to themselves. Why must they join groups based on their disorder? Will we see next a group called GOPedophile?
I’ll consider their “gayness” as important as they do. If they don’t bring it to the table, I won’t ask them to take it and go.
Is that an inconvenient truth?
Good grief people! I have responded to this already. Yes, I consider respect for marriage between a man a woman as part of the deal. But feel free to ignore that response so you can continue to pound me into oblivion.
Do you not realize that unmarried people can believe in marriage as a foundation of society - gay or not? Are we really so intolerant that every person must prove they support marriage by marrying someone themselves?
We were talking about politics in general here. So, just to make sure I understand you people: if a person who believes in limited government, fiscal responsibility, states rights, marriage between only a man an a woman is gay - we don't want them in the GOP. Right?
And, I know for a fact (inconvenient truth) that a gay person can accept the values listed above. Unless you define "conservative social values" as hating gays no matter what.
Guess that depends entirely on how one defines "family", and whether it's "pro-family" to push the notion that there is an equal alternative to a male and female having and raising children, doesn't it?
I used as my example of a person who respects marriage while not participating a Priest, as in Catholic Priest. If I mince words as much as you guys have, sounds like you are insinuating that Priests are pushing the notion that there are alternatives.
You are mincing, and you're avoiding the point. Priest and others who abstain from sex may still support the biological and psychological supremacy of the heterosexual family unit. By contrast, homosexuals insist that we accept their belief in an equivalent alternative social unit. That position (and campaign) is necessarily destructive to the special status of the natural family.
And therefore, it is definitely not pro-family, as you argue, but something else.
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.