Posted on 03/27/2013 10:45:06 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, issued some words of advice for fellow GOPers: Get in the 21st century with same-sex-marriage issues.
“We do have a platform, and we adhere to that platform,” Mr. Priebus said in a USA Today video. “But it doesn’t mean that we divide and subtract people from our party” who favor gay marriage.
“I don’t believe we need to act like Old Testament heretics,” he said in the USA Today video. Rather, Republicans “have to strike a balance between principle and grace and respect.”
His statements come as the U.S. Supreme Court is due to hear two cases on gay marriage — one on a California-voted ban on same-sex marriage, and the other on the legalities of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which bans the federal government from giving marriage benefits to same-sex couples.
His statements also come at a time when politicians from both sides of the political aisle are renouncing their past objections to gay marriage. On the Republican side, Sen. Rob Portman – an Ohio conservative with traditional values — just flipped on gay marriage, in part, he said, because of the recent revelations of homosexuality by one of his sons.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I do not dispute that the key Hebrew and Greek words and passages which condemn homosexuality, taken in context to include other passages on sexual behavior, very likely condemn a number of things which are commonly done today not only by homosexuals but also between consenting men and women.
My views on that issue would place me within the mainstream of conservative positions on sexuality at the time of the Reformation which were held by both Protestants and Roman Catholics, but which today are much less commonly heard among evangelicals. If you want to make the case that sexual activity should be for procreation and forms of sexual behavior such as anal sex which have no possibility of leading to reproduction are wrong, I don't have a problem with that argument. It's not one I choose to make because I believe we have bigger problems today to deal with such as homosexuality, and I'd prefer to fight on an issue which is crystal clear from Scripture rather than fight on the margins of what I believe can be supported from the text.
I've dealt with secular homosexuals and with so-called “evangelical gay” arguments for a very, very long time. That means I am used to seeing statements very much like yours being made by pro-homosexual people, arguing that because the Old Testament at least arguably condemns a number of sexual practices we today accept, that we should also accept homosexuality because we've accepted lots of other things.
I am glad that I did not make assumptions about your intent. It appears that you were going in a very different direction from what I had thought. I try not to assume intent without asking, and while I don't always succeed in understanding what people say or why they say it, I can't say that I don't try.
Since libertarians and conservatives agree on economics, that would be a strange thing for anyone to say.
LOL, only you could get confused by that simple and accurate post.
Each side has some far off of the wall supporters....I think the dems are out of control, though..
Since libertarians and conservatives agree on economics, that would be a strange thing for anyone to say.
LOL, only you could get confused by that simple and accurate post.
The only confusion here is yours in thinking that I'm confused.
Do you believe in private property but not private wives?
That's the blunt way that Christians in the 1800s responded to socialists and Communists who wanted to introduce not only community of goods but also free love.
By the time of Stalin, Russian Communists had figured out that a Communist view of loose morals didn't work in practice and started re-instituting something comparable to older Christian views of family life. However, we still today see Cuban Communists taking children away from their families to be raised in collective schools.
The simple fact of the matter is that Judeo-Christian views not only of work ethics but also of personal morality are intimately linked to the success of Western civilization.
Libertarianism seeks to have the economic principles of Judeo-Christian culture without the moral principles.
I do not believe that is possible over the long term. But there's a certain wing of the Republican Party that seems bound and determined to try that experiment and see if it works.
However, what Reince is really saying here is conservatives who forcefully argue against gay marriage are overzealous and we should avoid confronting the left on this issue in public.
Right, I agree we can't rely on religious arguments, that's a loser. They possibly don't even work on very religious people.
But this clown is telling people to wuss out, which is also a loser.
Both methods together will ensure a quick defeat. It's "worked" so far.
You clearly have no idea what that post was saying or referencing and don’t understand it.
So yes, you are confused.
“I am glad that I did not make assumptions about your intent.”
You have wisdom, especially considering one of the favorite physical activities on this site is jumping to conclusions.
We actually agree on the issue. Thanks for the thoughs and discussion. You made me think deeper today than I had intended.
We have an important issue here of libertarianism versus traditional conservative views. It is going to come back to bite us on homosexual marriage.
We all know that Free Republic does not tolerate advocacy of homosexual marriage so there's no risk of that agenda gaining ground here, but we need to argue against and intellectually defeat the libertarian arguments, not just zot them (and no, I'm not calling for zotting of anybody in this discussion).
Since we can't zot the libertarians in real life who want to run the Republican Party, let's try to get some debating practice here in cyberspace and learn more about how to effectively argue against those people in the real world outside cyberspace.
Bingo. That is such a big problem on the internet. Too often we say things to each other we would never say in real life to people we know well, precisely because we don't have a personal relationship with many of the people with whom we interact via cyberspace.
229 posted on 3/28/2013 4:53:22 PM by Owl558: “We actually agree on the issue. Thanks for the thoughs and discussion. You made me think deeper today than I had intended.”
Thank you. Thinking deeply is almost always a good thing, and conservatives need to do it more often.
Our country was not founded by fools and our Constitution was not written by uneducated men; even those who had little formal education were very much self-taught men who valued learning and took what opportunities they had to educate themselves via purchase of books imported from overseas and transported over long distances through what was then a howling wilderness. Conservatives who want to be constitutionalists need to follow that model of lifelong learning if we want to be good citizens.
I don't think so...can't think of one. Besides, what good would it do, there is no large presence of "independents" in Congress.
Both Dems and GOP have left me.
Oh cut it out. I doubt the RINOs ever represented you, and they've been running the GOP (into the ground) forever.
The GOP-e (RINOs) have always rejected you (except for your support in votes and money)
It will NOT, in ANY way, make me a democrat.
No, it will leave you adrift. The TEApublicans need to finish taking over the party with some good candidates.
They need your support.
Excerpt from
RNC Chairman Tells GOP Not “To Act Like Old Testament Heretics” On Same-Sex Marriage
Priebus:...I don’t believe we need to act like Old Testament heretics either…”
Page: “What does that mean act like Old Testament heretics?”
Priebus: “I think you know it when you see it. I think you have to strike a balance between principle and grace and respect and that’s what I’m just trying to do.”
I am appalled and offended by his referring to the Old Testament patriarchs as heretics! By categorizing them as heretics, Priebus is saying that the teachings of God are also heretical and wrong.
Thank you.
Your opinion.
I am done with both parties, PERIOD.
The GOP sadly is dying. Let it go.
The tea party movement is the wave of the future.
I will support canidiates who will support conservative views, not parties, PERIOD.
Since libertarians and conservatives agree on economics, that would be a strange thing for anyone to say.
Libertarianism seeks to have the economic principles of Judeo-Christian culture without the moral principles.
Firstly, you seem to be reading things into my post that aren't there. My point was this and nothing else: ansel12's hypothetical (?) statement was logically incoherent inasmuch as its "but" implied that "conservative on economics" was something other than libertarian on economics, which is simply not the case.
Secondly, I disagree with you about what libertarianism seeks. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, and as such it limits its position on moral principles to the statement that government force ought to impose only that subset of moral principles that oppose the violation of individual rights. This is NOT a declaration that moral principles are undesirable nor even a matter of indifference.
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.