Cornyn defends decision to speak to gay Republican group

Texas Sen. John Cornyn is defending his decision to speak at an upcoming meeting of the Log Cabin Republicans, an organization of gay Republicans.

In a letter faxed yesterday to Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, a socially conservative group, Cornyn said he believes in "working together where possible" with other Republicans, even when he may disagree with them.

As chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Cornyn is charged with electing as many Republicans as possible to the Senate. He has been under attack in recent weeks from some hardline conservatives who believe that he has recruited too many moderates in the 2010 primary season — including some, like Mike Castle of Delaware, who lost in primaries to insurgent conservatives.

Cornyn said he accepted the invitation because the Log Cabin Republicans are "committed to defeat Senate Democrats this November." He said they "stand for fiscal discipline, limited government and a strong national defense. We may not agree on several key issues, but we do agree that every committee in the United States Senate should be chaired by a Republican."

Cornyn's commitment to appear at the event has been known publicly since July, but Perkins wrote him a letter on Monday raising questions about the Texan's plans.

In a polite response, Cornyn recites his social conservative bona fides and notes that "my record on social issues is well-established."

You don’t believe that they should be allowed at all right? Who’s pushing agenda?

I would say that YOU are TRYING to push an agenda; however, failing miserably...

Sticking with facts rather than attempting to subvert the discussion; e.g. attributing false claims to an individual --WOULD leave your 'freedom' argument with what? NOTHING...

You don’t believe that they should be allowed at all right?

Quote where I said that.

If you want your freedoms you had better let them have their freedoms as long as it doesn’t harm you.

It does harm me. It harms society to give special rights to a group based solely on deviant behavior. And it takes away my right to disagree with their illness.

And your talking points are homosexual agenda talking points.

Here are two links to the Log Cabin Republicans [sic] site.

Read their agenda. It is not conservative any more than the GOProud agenda.

Both organizations are simply homosexual agenda pushing organizations, trying to get the Republican party on board.

http://online.logcabin.org/issues/

http://online.logcabin.org/news_views/news_011805.html

Just like the GOProud organization, it’s “all gay all the time”. NOT conservative. Any Republican sucking up to either organization should be voted out of office if they are elected and fired if they are hired.

The reason for the LCR name is the lie that Abraham Lincoln was a homosexual, which he was not. So these deviants are liars and militant homosexuals, and most of them vote for Dems anyway.

If you want your freedoms you had better let them have their freedoms as long as it doesn’t harm you.

Could you re-phrase that sentence so it is clear and understandable?

In particular, what "freedoms" do you think people here do not want homosexuals to have? Being able to vote? Work? Ride on public transportation? Make wills?

Or these: Join the military? Marry? Adopt or foster children? Teach kids in school that "gay is good"?

You don’t believe that they should be allowed at all right?
>>Quote where I said that.<<

Did you notice the question mark? It means I was asking. Quotes would typically mean I was quoting you.
If you want your freedoms you had better let them have their freedoms as long as it doesn’t harm you.

>>It does harm me. It harms society to give special rights to a group based solely on deviant behavior. And it takes away my right to disagree with their illness. <<

We lost that battle back in the 60s. “Society” allowed the abhorrent behavior by not being stronger holding prayer in schools, strong family values, and prayer around the dinner table. You cannot legislate morals. On the other hand it certainly does not take away your right to disagree with their illness. (I used your word illness even though I do not agree that it is an illness. It’s a deviant behavior.
>>And your talking points are homosexual agenda talking points. <<

My talking points on freedom of private behavior is no more a homosexual agenda then my defense of your freedom to disagree with their private lifestyle.

My talking points on freedom of private behavior is no more a homosexual agenda then my defense of your freedom to disagree with their private lifestyle.

Private behavior is not a public issue for debate.

Only when a behavior is a put forth as a pertinent premise related to an issue is "private behavior" relevant for discussion.

Just because one can hit themselves in the head with a hammer or eat dog poop "privately" does not make such practices of value to society...

The issue becomes an issue when such practices are pushed by their practitioners who seek acceptance as normal what society rejects as disordered and of no value to society...

The issue really becomes a contentious issue when the practitioners of such practices push to have big government impose acceptance upon society and privilege at the expense of society these practices that society rejects as disordered and of no value to society...

Do YOU call that freedom?

Speaking of "private behavior" --the "Log Cabin Republicans" really could just as well be called the "We Hit Ourselves With Hammers Republicans" or "Dog Poop Eating Republicans" -are you getting a clue yet?

Private behavior is no longer private when it is placed in the public domain and is premise for promoting political initiatives...

Now, what are you promoting here -"private behavior" freedom which we already have and as such require no promotion of OR are you promoting the homosexual agenda?

Did you notice the question mark? It means I was asking.

No you weren't.

You cannot legislate morals.

This has nothing to do with "legislating" morals. It has everything to do with them asking for special rights. As of now, they have the same rights as everyone else. They want special rights.

My talking points on freedom of private behavior

I don't care what they do in private. But teaching in schools that homosexuality is normal is not private. Demanding the "right" for two of the same to "marry" is not private. Demanding to be openly homosexual and serve in the military is not private.

As you may have read in my previous post. I think homosexuality is an abhorrent behavior. I will reference God’s dealing with Sodom and Gomorrah as to my attitude.

However, in this country the freedoms given by the constitution demand that we, if we want our own freedom to have the ten commandments in court buildings, openly pray in public buildings such as schools, and all of the other freedoms we want, must allow others freedom as well as long as it does not infringe on our liberty or freedom.

That being said, you will agree with me that this country has gone well beyond removing or restricting the gay community from gathering through legislation. That change must come from within the Churches, homes, and schools. Given that even many churches have embraced the homosexual community I believe the overall battle has been lost on any great scale. If the Churches don’t get back to Biblical principles that family will not and thus society will not.

That all leaves us in the same situation as Noah found himself and Job found himself.

The thread we are in is on someone speaking to a group of individuals with whom we disagree. My contention was simply that he has the right to speak to that group and that does not necessarily mean he agrees with their lifestyle.

My bottom line is that we can not change a society unless we get back to a Spiritual base that starts in the Church or the individual and at this point the Churches are not doing the job as it seems to me.

>> I don’t care what they do in private. But teaching in schools that homosexuality is normal is not private. Demanding the “right” for two of the same to “marry” is not private. Demanding to be openly homosexual and serve in the military is not private<<

I agree with you on all of those points. Thus, my children did not go to public schools. Marriage is a Church institution and Churches now sanction it. Military is still a voluntary organization.

Never have I disagreed with you that homosexuality is an abhorrent behavior. All of that does not change the fact that they have the right to assemble in this country and Cornyn has the right to speak to them.

You and I do not disagree in our view of homosexuality. We disagree on how to deal with it. I believe that Constitutionally we are stuck. The changes that need to be made is in our Churches view and practice or nothing will change in society, only get worse.

All of that does not change the fact that they have the right to assemble in this country

No one said otherwise.

and Cornyn has the right to speak to them.

Homosexual "rights" are being pushed. Hard. This is absolutely the wrong time for an elected official to be speaking to a deviant group in his official capacity. Especially one that claims to be a conservative. It sends the wrong message.

Cornyn has screwed up big time lately. With Murkowski and O'Donnell. He referred to Tea Partiers as peons. He cannot claim to be a conservative and court liberal Republicans. We ARE to judge those that govern us and Cornyn fails.

We disagree on how to deal with it. I believe that Constitutionally we are stuck.

If you are implying that deviants have the Constitutional right to Marriage etc, you are wrong.

Your postings combined here do not seem cogent in my opinion. Maybe you should think about and reconcile your many feelings before arguing on the subject.

FIRST -freedom is endowed by the Creator -not the Constitution...

The Constitution guarantees freedom to practice religion without limit -it does not guarantee homosexual sex. There is no comparison between homosexual sex and religious practice nor is religious liberty threatened as a right to be lost if homosexual sex returns to the closet it came from...

As far as the discussion: If you think the battle is lost -why fight? If you think freedom trumps God why discuss God? If you think this is only about private behavior then why do we discuss it as if it is not private?

If a politician wants to align with groups pushing the homosexual agenda that is fine for him -he can sacrifice HIS principles and become corrupted in hopes of getting that bigger tent and more POWER (it works so well for populist collectives like the Dems who are nothing but an unprincipled mob)... Anyway, citizens that do not agree with him doing this CAN disagree with it and vote his *ss out! There is nothing wrong disagreeing with him if he leans RINO -suggesting this might endanger freedom or that religious liberty is it stake is ludicrous...

>>There is no comparison between homosexual sex and religious practice<<

Are you kidding me? The Bible specifically condemns homosexuality. Reference Sodom and Gamorah.

I may not be explaining myself well. I believe that what you want to accomplish has to start in the Church. If we do not get back to Biblical principals there is nothing we can accomplish legislatively that will work.

Never have I said we should “give up”. I have said that if we do not change the way that churches deal with issues like homosexuality we will never change society as a whole.

Inalienable rights come from God, they are protected in this country by the Constitution.

Btw: if you are not a born again Christian non of this will make any sense to you anyway.

>>If you are implying that deviants have the Constitutional right to Marriage etc, you are wrong.<<

Find in the Constitution that marriage is even in the purview of the Constitution. Marriage was instituted by God as it tells us in the Bible. It’s the Churches that have fallen down on this issue.

Oh, and don’t get me wrong. I am not a Cornyn fan by any means. As for his sending the wrong message, I would just say that Cornyn, from what I can tell, hasn’t shown me that he is even a true Christian. We can’t expect Christian behavior from someone who doesn’t exhibit Christian beliefs.

Therein lies the whole issue, as I see it, with Christine O’Donnell. She, as I can tell, is a true Christian and look at the vitriol being sent her way. Even by conservatives. You could also put in that group Sarah Palin and perhaps Glen Beck although I have issues with the Mormon part.

Find in the Constitution that marriage is even in the purview of the Constitution.

It is not. And again, homosexuals have the same rights that everyone has. They want extra rights. That's not in the Constitution either. It states that all are equal. Homosexuals disagree. They want special privileges. What we're saying is "No". Cornyn, by speaking to them is giving the appearance of approval. I'm not ok with that. I'm also not a peon. But he IS an elitist jerk. And wrong on this issue.

Communication is a two way street -so, I will take at least half the blame...

I would agree with your point in general that principles must have a firm foundation; otherwise, they are like leaves blowing in the wind -when wind direction changes so do principles without foundation. The principle(s) Cornyn advocates here seem be blowing in the wind.

Maybe, if Cornyn would specifically state what exactly he disagrees with "them" about and how exactly he hopes to accomplish gaining conservative votes from supposed conservatives that would supposedly vote conservative anyway then what is left unsaid would become clear?

An obvious question is -if this just a conservative initiative and is not about advancing the homosexual agenda then why is it all about meeting a group that promotes the homosexual agenda?

>>Maybe, if Cornyn would specifically state what exactly he disagrees with “them” about<<

That’s the key!!!! From what I have seen of Cornyn I’m doubtful that he has the moral foundation needed. While I don’t think that he is going there to advance the homosexual agenda neither can I say he isn’t but I doubt it.

Given the revelations lately of the pervasiveness of the homosexual lifestyle in Washington allegedly going all the way to the top I wonder any more.

Oh, have you seen this one. It’s the slippery slope I’m afraid.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2590644/posts?page=1

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.