Posted on 06/10/2010 10:57:35 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
Edited on 06/10/2010 12:46:35 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Zev Chafets, who has ridden the publicity train for his new, sympathetic biography of Rush Limbaugh into a gig as Limbaugh's emissary to the rest of the media, explains why the talk show host booked Elton John to play his wedding -- for $1 million.
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
And George Michael.
>>>As for Elton John...I used to play his music on the radio back in my deejay days, and I liked his music before I even knew he was gay. Now, knowing he’s gay does not automatically make his music suddenly unacceptable.
Dittos.
LOL...probably in the mid-60’s...at least until I finally saw a picture of him with his glasses, etc.
Why I am not a conservative by F.A. Hayek
Not a fan of his music. Now, if you were to tell me that Freddie Mercury was gay . . . .
I agree with Rush on this. Why would anyone choose to be gay, it is a tough life with high suicide rates etc. The gay people I know sure seem to be born that way. Whether that is a quirk of nature or a birth defect is beside the point. Gay people are still people and they ought to be able to live their lives however they choose to, provided they don't encroach on anyone else's right to do the same.
Whew! That’s a relief.
Rush isn’t conservative? Really? How stupid can you possibly be?
I agree with you.
We must separate church and state. If the state is going to sanction a marriage, I don’t feel they can discriminate because of gender. I do think they can and should put controls on age and number.
That said, the church should be able to sanction marriage for the purposes of the church in whatever way they feel is appropriate.
And one should not be able to enforce their will on the other.
I agree 100%!
I would love to have you explain what in your mind a conservative looks like.
On Tuesday, Mark Levin explained how and why Rush and his wife asked Elton to perform. It ain't rocket science and it ain't a conspiracy folks.
The homosexual agenda is about much, much more than “marriage”. Plus, they want marriage to change society, as noted below (sorry I put these together some without all source data):
(Oh, and having love for a family member or friend doesn’t mean we have to love everything they think, do or believe. Unless we want to have no principles other than sentiment.)
From LA Times of March 12: ...
“Divided over gay marriage” by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to “push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society.” ... [snip]
An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
“Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):
“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake —and one that would perhaps benefit all of society—is to transform the notion of family entirely.”
“Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: “...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn’t deserve the position.” (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater “understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”
He notes: “The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.” (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said:
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (partially quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,”
Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated:
“Isn’t having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. “(quoted in “What Marriage Is For,” by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:
“Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.” (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”
[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]
Why I am not a conservative by F.A. HayekAt the start of the Twentieth Century the term "liberal" meant the same in America as it still does in the rest of the world - essentially, what is called "conservatism" in American Newspeak. Of course we "American Conservatives" are not the ones who oppose development and liberty, so in that sense we are not conservative at all. We actually are liberals.But in America, "liberalism" was given its American Newspeak - essentially inverted - meaning in the 1920s (source: Safire's New Political Dictionary). The fact that the American socialists have acquired a word to exploit is bad enough; the real disaster is that we do not now have a word which truly descriptive of our own political perspective. We only have the smear words which the socialists have assigned to us. And make no mistake, in America "conservative" is inherently a negative connotation just as surely as marketers love to boldly proclaim that the product which they are flogging is NEW!
It’s an old fashioned turn of phrase.
Worked up...
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.