Replies

At the same time, we must be open to participation by all manner of people. Is it possible to enforce a Christian morality in one area and not enforce it in others? Shouldn't Republicans have a plank about adulterers or About alcoholics if it has one about homosexuality? I don't say this facetiously

I'd like to attempt a thoughtful response to your thoughtful posting.

I think it's largely a matter of official recognition and, therefore, validation. And so I'd put it this way.

First, there is no doubt that the GOP does in fact do business and form common cause with drunks, druggies, adulterers, thieves, homosexuals, child molestors, and the like.

But, if any of those groups formed an official group identified by that one trait (i.e. "Scarlet Letter Republicans," "Pedophile Pubbies," etc.), then such a group should not and must not receive formal recognition and validation.

I think that's the big issue. And, to be clear, unlike the group in the article, I do intend to draw a parallel between Log Cabin and NAMBLA.

Dan

Your comments are valid. I'm trying to balance my views on job discrimination and life discrimination with my views on politics, voting, and political parties. It's really difficult to do.

When people group together, then they've done so because of some focus that's important to them. To the extent that Log Cabin Republicans are grouped together to prevent job/life discrimination, then I'm inclined to live and let live. To the extent that they wish to advocate homosexuality in any form, then I disagree with them.

Because I think any American should be granted a right to vote, to peaceably assemble, to not be deprived of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness without due process, then I think it applies as well to homosexuals.

I think it's sad that their behavior is killing them. I wish they'd change. But I can't make a logical leap from there to denying them their political rights.

Maybe there's a good reason to begin a Christian Conservative Party.