Posted on 02/20/2010 7:58:13 AM PST by Brices Crossroads
"While I was flipping through the autobiography, a woman approached the booth. Catherine Sumner, it turned out, was part of GOProud, a group of openly gay Republicans and conservatives that for the first time is taking part in CPAC. “Is this your flyer?” Sumner demanded, waving the white and green pamphlet. Thus launched a debate about gays in the military that pretty much ended when the booth attendee told her that homosexuality is a sin and she’s going to hell.
“It’s insulting,” Sumner, 31, who edits a military magazine, said turning away. “Across the board the reaction to GOProud’s presence here has been positive, but then you have guys like this. Even Dick Cheney came out and says he supports us. Conservatives have to be more inclusive, they have to be.” In fact, just one group, Liberty University, boycotted CPAC over the inclusion of GOProud, though the Catholic crowd weren’t the only ones unnerved by their presence: one booth down from GOProud’s set up in the fourth row, those manning the National Organization for Marriage, which works to ban gay marriage, kept casting nervous – and slightly envious – glances at the somewhat larger crowd surrounding GOProud’s booth.
The tensions didn’t end there. Along the back wall 2004 World Poker Champion Greg Raymer stood waiting for a talk radio interview. “Focus on the Family considers poker immoral,” Raymer said, gesturing towards the Focus on the Family booth down an aisle. “They have no right to tell me what to do.” Raymer is at CPAC representing the Poker Players Alliance..."
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Well, you know me. I always prefer one’s own words to do the talking, like in the case of VP Cheney’s remarks on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and in this case, GOProud’s very own “legislative conservative agenda”.
I mean, they have it all covered, don’t they?
#7. DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION - Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.
By all means, such concern for our Constitution, as though the amendment process would not be constitutional. Furthermore, look at their wording: anti-gay!!!
Did you hear the boo’s while he was walking to the podium?
Laws werent the topic of the converstion. It was people voicing their opinion on how others live.
Yeah, he’s a character.
I was responding to your comment, “We have no right to force anyone to do anything.”
Glad to see you back, LJ! We need you to fight the Anderson Coopers of the GOP, LOL.
Yes but you took my comment out of context and then commented on it. I was putting it in the context of the conversation.
>>>“I’m not one bit concerned about CPAC or its Straw Poll.” It is bought and paid for, by Mittens. It is fishwrap
Ron Paul wins conservative straw poll (CPAC)
So since some tell us this was Romney’s pro-gay puppets, does that mean Ron Paul is pro-gay and pro-Romney now?
Is is SO difficult to keep up sometimes, but I try.
We have the obligation to tell others what God’s law is, including the fact that all sexual sin is an abomination. Which is what you had agreed to, and then you stated that we do not have the right to force anyone to do anything. Logically, that means there is no enforcement of that law. Correct?
No logically that means that I have no right to force someone to do what I think is morally right. The discussion was about telling someone that homosexuality is a sin. I have a right to say that it is a sin but I have no right to force someone to agree with me or to modify their sinful behavior. The enforcement of law was not the topic of conversation. Society certainly has a right to enforce the law.
Why do you insist on assigning another meaning to my words when I have clearly explained myself?
Sorry, I always equate morality with the law.
I don’t see how you can do that. Not all laws are moral and not all morality is legislated.
exactly
we are inclusive with the majority of the public, while the left can be nice to the 3% of homosexuals
we don’t need them and they can piss off
seems I was too late to the party, the comments have gone
I really don’t see the right to get married,either.It’s a choice one can make,but it’s not a right,just like driving isn’t a right.I’d like to serve my country but because of medical problems I can’t.I couldn’t force the military to accept me,just like the gays can’t force anyone to accept their “marriage”.
These are the ones I have respect for.I f I had gays/lesbians living nextdoor but they kept it to themselves,I could get along w/them just fine,perhaps even be friends.
I don’t know what new social constructs will be needed, nobody does yet. I realize it goes against the grain, but imagine what is coming. For example, two men can make a child that is genetically their own. Or worse, several people’s genetics are combined to make a child that has the best of their collective traits. Who is the parent? What is the family? How about a machine that is part human, part machine? Or worse part human part dolphin? Or, imagine human life can be extended to 200-300 years, does everyone get to live that long or does euthanasia or denying the magic health care become more palatable? I don’t like it any more than you do, but nothing is going to stop it. We need to learn to cope with the changes and differences that are coming, like it or not. The hot button issues of abortion and homosexuality are merely the tip of the iceberg of what’s coming. Trying to hold back the tide is not much different from the Islamist nut cases’ argument that women should wear burkas.
Brave New World.
Nope, no way, never, humans are not God.
But you are insane.
I re-grouped.
;-)
There’s this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2455408/posts?page=971#971
I think there’s been five or six banned, so far.
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.