Log Cabin Republicans... Infiltrators with a mission

World Net Daily ^ | 5/2/03 | WND

[Paloma_55]

The leader of a Republican homosexual activist group that considers itself a moderate influence in the party is linked to radical "queers" urging the murder of Christian leaders, according to a family advocacy group....

[Michael2001]

BTTT

[Trace21230]

Hank, many Republicans support you and agree with you.

I agree with you, no one (including misguided Christians who hate gay people) has the right to decide who's in or who's out of the republican party.

That having been said, I hope you're ready for the attacks you will receive now that you've admitted being gay.

Trace

[Trace21230]

"There are a lot of other straight Repubs that feel the same way as I do."

Yup, I'm with you.

Incidentally, I also sincerely doubt the "Christian" credentials of many of the posters on here who seem to make a second living attacking homosexuals and fixating on demeaning them.

To me, that kind of denigration is UN-Christian, but I guess I must be just another godless infidel.

Trace

[Mr. Mojo]

The whole concept that they based their name upon, "Lincoln was a homo" is a pile of crap

Wait just a minute ....I've never heard that one before. Those fruits better not mess around with any of the Founders.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Here here! You are so correct, we should definitely follow the teachings of Jesus and cross to the other side of the road to avoid touching the unclean Samaritan, never dine with tax collectors, and certainly never talk to a woman at the well. < / sarcasm >

As an evangelical, I believe homosexuality is a sin and a dangerous path that can lead to hell. But your ugly diatribe does nothing to persuade someone to leave that life, and in fact feeds the stereotype that conservatives are hateful bigots. One can express disagreement with the homosexual activist political agenda without becoming vitriolic. Do you want to rant, or do you want to persuade and win those with counter views to your side?

As a political matter, I recognize that any winning party must form at least loose coalitions with groups of overlapping interests. If someone who is gay believes and votes predominantly conservative except for some social issues, I would prefer they vote Republican, and we will disagree on the social issues. Not every person who is gay is a militant activist trying to undermine social order. In fact given some of the crude and vitriolic posts here on FR in the supposed name of conservative Christianity, I can see why some in the middle would get the idea that conservatives want an oppressive theocracy. By and large the admitted gay Freepers I have read post in a dignified and reasonable manner. Too bad more don't follow their lead in that regard. Posts like yours make it that much harder to defend good leaders like Santorum and Dobson, that much harder to get people to listen to their actual logic and beliefs. One can defend one's position without compromising and still be civil and respectful.

I'll fight any attempt at legalizing gay marriage, but I will also gladly work with any Log Cabin Republican, or Democrat, or Muslim, on any issues that we share in common.

[Mr. Mojo]

Flame suit on.

OK, now you're gonna get it. [Just kidding]. I think homo behavior is disgusting, but if some of them want to vote Republican (ostensibly for economic reasons), I don't want to dissuade them from doing so.

[I got the rope]

Homo apologist Bump! LOL! Thought you two would feel right at home on this thread.

[bruinbirdman]

"We (gay republicans) have no desire to 'infiltrate' the republican party,"

Michael Huffington didn't have to infiltrate? When discovered he was instant neo-com, his wife instant socialist.

David Brock didn't have to infiltrate? The exposer of Anita Hill was himself exposed. Poof, instant neo-com.

I am sure there are plenty more.

yitbos

[CWOJackson]

I don't personally approve of the gay lifestyle, however:

I'm too worried about my own salvation to start trying to judge the sins of others.

I can't see anything in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that indicates gays aren't entitled to the same rights and priviledges as I am. "We the people" includes gays.

I don't recon it's any of my business unless it interfers with my rights (ie. I've actively worked at keeping it out of the classroom as I don't believe this is school responsibility).

I don't think anything less of gay people. I do believe they're wrong in their sexuality, but I also believe people who drive certain makes of car are wrong, people who blindly vote any party are wrong, people who....I could go on for a long time.

Then again, not everyone is perfect like me.

[Fiddlstix]

Bump

[Consort]

Get back in the cabin closet Rope-Fag and don't invite any men to your thread anymore.

[spodefly]

A very reasoned and patient response to an asinine post.

I am neither a Christian nor a devout republican, and yet I am disgusted and repulsed by homosexual activities. I despise the fact that our children are exposed on a daily basis to flagrant homosexuality. I despise the political correctness that surrounds discussion of an unnatural perversion. I have been around enough homosexuals to know that for whatever small percentage that practice a loving monogamous relationship that could in some way be construed as 'normal', the other 95% are jumping from anonymous partner-to-anonymous partner and have a level of promiscuity that is aberrant in the extreme.

For whatever small percentage of people are homosexual (less than 5% probably) this country is turning itself inside out to conform to their hypersensitive emotions, and is compromising its moral principle in even discussing the 'normalization' of their completely abnormal inclinations.

[I got the rope]

My dearest troll,

I suspect that DU is waiting for your report. Many of us real conservative, God fearing folks are already on to you.

[Consort]

My dearest...

I had you figured right. Your boyfriends are waiting for you Rope-guy back at Salon.com.

[I got the rope]

Spinning Troll alert!

[longtermmemmory]

no he was not. This is homo revisionist history. Accorting to homosexuals every person of importance was a homosexual practitioner. This goes with the myth of the geeky homosexual with excellent fashion sense. (not defendants in the courtroom I can tell you)

[Consort]

Calling for help coward?

[longtermmemmory]

please spare us from homosexual accusations on the dead. FYI the constitution is most assuridly NOT an amoral document. Morality, without religious reference, IS part of the constitution. (and with reference to the living nature of the document refered in anther thread today its only living by the amendment process not by reinterpritation) Homosexuality is not a viable lifestyle and there is nothing wrong with holding that it is an lifestyle to be discourage and avoided. In fact in Texas its the law that public schools MUST teach that homosexuality is not good and not a benefit to society.

[I_dmc]

Well, many of us, (straight Republicans), would point out that there is no such wording in the U.S. Constitution that denotes any separation of Church & State.

In addition, this only applies to the federal government.  States are free to designate a state religion if they choose, though the last one that did was Maryland.

[E Rocc]

What do we need 3% of the population for

Considering the closeness of the 2000 election and the current breakdown in Congress, a better question would be "why intentionally discard supporters?". Especially when they only differ from us on a matter that is absolutely none of the government's business anyway.

-Eric