GOProud at CPAC creates controversy, calls for boycotts

posted at 1:30 pm on December 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The Conservative Political Action Conference is the pinnacle of events for conservative activists.  Held annually in Washington DC in the winter, it aggregates hundreds of conservative activist groups and thousands of attendees, and attracts high-profile figures on the Right, including national and regional politicians hoping to tap CPAC’s energy.  Not all of these groups agree with each other on all issues, and sometimes the close quarters results in some entertaining debates (and sometimes just silly displays, such as the porpoise that followed Mitt Romney throughout the Omni in 2007).  But the inclusion of a conservative coalition of gays, GOProud, has created calls for the ACU and CPAC to cut off GOProud’s sponsorship and attendance at CPAC as well as a few rumblings of a boycott among social conservatives.

This is justified in e-mails circulating among conservatives based on allegations that GOProud is a crypto-Leftist group seeking to infiltrate and weaken conservative policies.  However, that doesn’t match up with the group’s stated legislative priorities, which do not go any further than most of the conservative and libertarian groups that regularly attend and sponsor the conference.  I’ll post their list in its entirety:

1 – TAX REFORM – Death tax repeal; domestic partner tax equity, and other changes to the tax code that will provide equity for gays and lesbians; cut in the capital gains and corporate tax rates to jump start our economy and create jobs; a fairer, flatter and substantially simpler tax code.

2 – HEALTHCARE REFORM – Free market healthcare reform. Legislation that will allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines – expanding access to domestic partner benefits; emphasizing individual ownership of healthcare insurance – such a shift would prevent discriminatory practices by an employer or the government.

3 – SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM – Bringing basic fairness to the Social Security system through the creation of inheritable personal savings accounts.

4 – DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL REPEAL – Repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

5 – HOLDING THE LINE ON SPENDING – Standing up for all tax payers against wasteful and unneccessary spending to protect future generations from the mounting federal debt.

6 – FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS – Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians.

7 – DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.

8 – ENCOURAGING COMMUNITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP – Package of free market reforms to encourage and support small businesses and entrepreneurship in the gay community.

9 – REVITALIZING OUR COMMUNITIES – A package of urban related reforms; expanding historic tax preservation credits; support for school choice.

10 – DEFENDING OUR COMMUNITY – Protecting 2nd amendment rights.

Social conservatives will have a problem with numbers 4 and possibly 7, although the latter relates to a Constitutional amendment making marriage a federal issue, which conservatives should be wary of doing anyway.  Otherwise, their platform could be just as easily adopted at a Tea Party as at GOProud, and would receive rousing support from the floor at CPAC coming from any other entity.  It’s not a far-Left or crypto-Left agenda at all, but a good, solid recitation of conservative principles and fiscal responsibility.

In other words, we have at least an 80% agreement on the major issues facing our country between mainstream conservatives and this sponsor of CPAC.  That seems like a pretty good fit.  I asked Lisa De Pasquale, the director of CPAC, for a response to the controversy:

CPAC is a coalition of nearly 100 conservative groups, some of which may disagree with one another on a handful of issues.  But, at the end of the day, we all agree on core conservative principles.  As you may know, GOProud was founded by a former member of the Log Cabin Republicans who left the group because he thought they were doing a disservice to their constituency by not adhering to conservative and Republican principles.  GOProud’s website states “GOProud is committed to a traditional conservative agenda that emphasizes limited government, individual liberty, free markets and a confident foreign policy. GOProud promotes our traditional conservative agenda by influencing politics and policy at the federal level.”

After talking with their leadership and reviewing their website, I am satisfied that they do not represent a “radical leftist agenda,” as some have stated, and should not be rejected as a CPAC cosponsor.

This seems like a wise decision, and this controversy challenges conservatives as to whether they’re interested in a governing coalition based on fundamental conservative principles or a mission of absolute purity on the Right.  If we want to win control of the House in 2010, we need to focus on key principles that address the nation’s crises and the main points of disillusion with Democrats.  That should set our focus on those points on which Democrats overreached — namely, spending, government intrusion, spiraling deficits, and fiscal insanity.  We need to show that we can, if trusted with power again, govern properly and responsibly, and even more that we understand that the priorities are the fiscal issues and not the social issues that divide more than they unite.

GOProud’s priorities are fundamentally in line with that effort.  We should not allow a purity campaign to push away natural allies on the fiscal crisis that grips our country, and the opportunity we have to correct it in 2010.

Update: I misspelled Lisa’s name; I’ve corrected it above. My apologies.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7

Umm,
You don’t link to a single opposition group. Maybe you should correct that error in the interest of fairness?

Spartacus on December 17, 2009 at 9:53 AM

Hmm that their entire idea is a lie, coupled with the damage it does to the kids psyche when they at first blame themselves for their feelings and think that some how it’s their actions that cause them to be attracted to guys.
What makes it worse is the people at the top of Exodous know full well that none of their ‘patients’ will ever stop being gay, they’ll just have learned to hide it better.

Zekecorlain on December 17, 2009 at 9:49 AM

So is it safe to assume that you’re one of the deviant persuasion? Is it safe to assume that you do not believe in the Hebrew Messiah, or at least that you don’t believe He can forgive all sins?

Technically, based on your post, you do not believe that there is anything wrong with the religion of deviant sex nor do you believe that anyone should disagree with you.

Have I got all that about right?

platypus on December 17, 2009 at 9:56 AM

Wrong word. Deviant is the word that describes what normal people are trying to avoid.

Apologists such as yourself are just liberal leftists and will always make excuses. Your ancestors probably sold indulgences for the Church, back in Luther’s time.

platypus

Odd that you pick a nomicker that is in itself a deviant from the animal norm, yet I don’t see you making special laws to outlaw all Platypii? Love how you compare the gay supporters to the catholic church and you to the feisty defenders of the old ways…totally pointless to the discussion but for some reason relevant to you. Are catholics christians?

Zekecorlain on December 17, 2009 at 9:56 AM

You’re just making that crap up imo.
Whats your problem with the opinion of fools “painting us to be nutjobs”..who cares what fools think or want? Your whole “appeasing the skygod” riff is rather patheticly vague imo.
Can you clarify what you mean by that thought pattern?

What are the things you see that are “appeasing the skygod” based?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 8:43 AM

Well, you are aware that the average young urban and suburban person, upon hearing the words Republican or conservative, thinks “bible-thumping racist homophobe”.

I should know because that’s what I am to my wife’s family by virtue of being conservative. (and before the torches are lit again, conservative in no way means one must adhere to social conservatism.)

Anyway, apparently here I’m a “hardcore liberal sociopath” because I adhere to the political ideals of our founding, but also reject Christian moralizing as a basis for domestic policy.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 10:05 AM

Zekecorlain on December 17, 2009 at 9:56 AM

It’s not about being christian or catholic or even a member of the Church of Deviance.

It’s about being filthy lying two-faced hypocrites. If the GOP ever wants to be in power again it will not tolerate these sex deviants in its midst. They are not honest.

As far as you and Exodus, you just keep on keeping on justifying your choices. When you are old, and it’s too late to change your life, you can wallow in your regret.

platypus on December 17, 2009 at 10:11 AM

It’s good that liberal, leftist, RINO, commie, snake in the grass, deviant-lover Barry Goldwater has passed on because we would of had to purge him if he was still around.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 10:12 AM

lol and this is why conservatives fracture.

Can’t stop talking about those ripe n’ ready social issues! It’s so EASY to argue about “THE GAYS!!!” rather than, idk, energy policy or carbon trading legislation.

And this is why the “Republicans” get the disingenuous moniker of the party of H8 and all the social identity groups flee to the Dems who are at the brink of massive social infighting (gays v. blacks; hispanics v. blacks; Catholics v. Agnostics; etc etc.).

I just lol at the stupidity of it all. People never cease to continually take their eyes off the brass ring.

lansing quaker on December 17, 2009 at 10:13 AM

So is it safe to assume that you’re one of the deviant persuasion? Is it safe to assume that you do not believe in the Hebrew Messiah, or at least that you don’t believe He can forgive all sins?

Technically, based on your post, you do not believe that there is anything wrong with the religion of deviant sex nor do you believe that anyone should disagree with you.

Have I got all that about right?

platypus

Not only don’t I believe in the hebrew messiah, I don’t think that modern christians have any right to question their god’s creation skills. It doesn’t make much sense that they “honor” the creation by deciding it’s messed up and needs changing.
Also being gay is not a religion, it’s about who you can be attracted to, not just who you have sex with. I’m gay because I can only form close romantic relationships with members of my own sex. I can pretend to love a female, but that’s all it would be. I don’t believe it’s anyone’s right to tell me that I have to pretend all my life that i’m not this way. Or that it is even unnatural given the wide spread scope of homosexual liaison’s found in nature, and the overwhelming documentation of gays through history. Christianity is younger than the history of human gays, how is it that they take it upon themselves to judge it?

Zekecorlain on December 17, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Anyway, apparently here I’m a “hardcore liberal sociopath” because I adhere to the political ideals of our founding, but also reject Christian moralizing as a basis for domestic policy.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 10:05 AM

Seriously, you actually do not see the complete contradiction in this passage?

The Founding Fathers did an awful lot of moralizing, based on a Christian god worldview. If you actually adhered to the political ideals of the founding, you’d be a conservative. As it presently stands, you’re a libertarian with anarchist leanings who is masquerading as a conservative. Or possibly you just don’t know what a conservative really is.

platypus on December 17, 2009 at 10:16 AM

The Founding Fathers did an awful lot of moralizing, based on a Christian god worldview. If you actually adhered to the political ideals of the founding, you’d be a conservative. As it presently stands, you’re a libertarian with anarchist leanings who is masquerading as a conservative. Or possibly you just don’t know what a conservative really is.

platypus on December 17, 2009 at 10:16 AM

So Barry Goldwater, Mr. Conservative, wasn’t a conservative?

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 10:20 AM

It’s about being filthy lying two-faced hypocrites. If the GOP ever wants to be in power again it will not tolerate these sex deviants in its midst. They are not honest.

As far as you and Exodus, you just keep on keeping on justifying your choices. When you are old, and it’s too late to change your life, you can wallow in your regret.

platypus

Hmm being lying two faced hypocrites would be ignoring the large number of gays that already work for the GOP and pretending that any of the GOP’s past success’s would have been possible without their hard work.
hmm all gays are liars, I’ll buy that after all we’re trained to lie to meet the expectations of our family who take so long to accept us for just being us, and not the carrier of their expectations.
I don’t have to worry about regretting what I said about Exodus, I know that they regret the lies they spew every time another one of them is caught at a gay bar, or they have to kiss the lips of their wives that they don’t want, all to please their absent god, and their families expectations.

Zekecorlain on December 17, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Don’t you see @SCBradley, you will never be a really “founding father conservative” until you believe in slavery and male patriarchy. Only than will your credentials even matter! You must also live in an unheated house, have no shampoo, have lice, swear your allegiance to King George (most founders were Anglican) and you should also be against womens suffrage.

Than you can really be legit!

Zekecorlain on December 17, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Close enough…Feds should stay out of marriage, the states, 32 of them, have chosen the correct path.
No organization will represent 100% of the people…

right2bright on December 17, 2009 at 10:25 AM

It’s good that liberal, leftist, RINO, commie, snake in the grass, deviant-lover Barry Goldwater has passed on because we would of had to purge him if he was still around.
SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Yup.
The Republican Party has not been a utilitarian libertarian secular humanist party, and you cannot make it into one without shrinking it. Your “Wall Street/San Francisco” agenda is a loser.

The Founding Fathers did an awful lot of moralizing, based on a Christian god worldview. If you actually adhered to the political ideals of the founding, you’d be a conservative. As it presently stands, you’re a libertarian with anarchist leanings who is masquerading as a conservative. Or possibly you just don’t know what a conservative really is.

platypus on December 17, 2009 at 10:16 AM

Right. The notion of the absolute worth of an individual trumping the convenience of the collective is derived from the Christian doctrine of the immortal soul.

I don’t believe it’s anyone’s right to tell me that I have to pretend all my life that i’m not this way. Or that it is even unnatural given the wide spread scope of homosexual liaison’s found in nature, and the overwhelming documentation of gays through history. Christianity is younger than the history of human gays, how is it that they take it upon themselves to judge it?
Zekecorlain on December 17, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Myth. 21st century American notions of romantic love would disgust and outrage most human cultures of the past. Sex is culture.

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 10:29 AM

but also reject Christian moralizing as a basis for domestic policy.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 10:05 AM

Maybe your family see your inconstancy in your thoughts.
Rather then rejecting wholesale and using inflammatory phrases like “Christian moralizing”, you should understand (but you won’t) that our “moralizing” is faith based, and you accept probably 90% of it…embrace what you know is right, and reject the rest…but not on the basis that it is being forced upon you or that it is “Christian” based. You are throwing out the baby with the bath water as they say…

right2bright on December 17, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Zekecorlain on December 17, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Don’t care that you’re deceived or that you like being deviant. Don’t want to stop you from doing what you do.

I do want you to grow up and see truth. The truth is that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that no law can be passed to stop you from practicing deviant sex. Why is that not enough?

Your choice of sex act doesn’t breed children so why do you need tax breaks for children?

Your choice of sex acts and your choice to ignore moral teachings has unleashed a plague on all people. Your constant efforts to pretend to be normal while secretly being deviant has spread HIV-AIDS around the planet. (Don’t waste your keyboard time with that African heterosexually spread AIDS myth)

You know that what you do is bad for people yet you keep doing it. How conservative is that?

Actually, I have better things to do this morning than try to teach a pig to sing. C’ya.

platypus on December 17, 2009 at 10:29 AM

The Founding Fathers did an awful lot of moralizing, based on a Christian god worldview.

Yeah, I’m sure the Constitutional Convention looked an awful lot like a Promise Keepers rally.

What other competing philosophical worldviews were there to choose from at that point in the 18th century?

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Glee DVD comes out December 29th!

Zekecorlain on December 17, 2009 at 10:33 AM

sorry decided that was more important that reading lectures by people who try to use the word ‘deviant’ more than 30 times before 10am

Zekecorlain on December 17, 2009 at 10:34 AM

how is it that they take it upon themselves to judge it?
Zekecorlain on December 17, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Because historically they have seen that it is destructive…tell me, after all these hundred of thousands of years, point out the civilization that has flourished embracing homosexuality, not tolerating (we do that) but actually embracing it.
What you miss is that people are not “animals” as you want homosexuals to be. To assume homosexuals are nothing but animals, with animal instincts that can’t be controlled is as about as bigoted as it gets.

scope of homosexual liaison’s found in nature

right2bright on December 17, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Not this conservative – and to call deviant marriage, defense of the constitution, makes a mockery of the latter and elevates the former -neither of which has anything to do with rights give to us by nature’s God!

Don L on December 17, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Maybe your family see your inconstancy in your thoughts.
Rather then rejecting wholesale and using inflammatory phrases like “Christian moralizing”, you should understand (but you won’t) that our “moralizing” is faith based,

right2bright on December 17, 2009 at 10:29 AM

You don’t read very well, do you? My wife’s family believes all Republicans to be racists. WTF are you talking about?

I don’t reject ideas because they are faith based. If they stand up to reason they are good, but as faith is a rejection of reason I will not accept supernatural commandments or the coercion of those who do.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 10:39 AM

Glee DVD comes out December 29th!

Zekecorlain on December 17, 2009 at 10:33 AM

OMG I LOVE GLEE ^_^

lansing quaker on December 17, 2009 at 10:39 AM

you’d be shocked at the similarity between straight and gay relations…

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2009 at 5:13 PM

Oh Please. Same gender-sex acts are the product of disordered thinking. The disorder is against the law of nature. The human innate, natural and normal drive to pass on its genes, to secure the survival of the species, is compromised.

sinsing on December 17, 2009 at 10:42 AM

Christianity is younger than the history of human gays, how is it that they take it upon themselves to judge it?
Zekecorlain on December 17, 2009 at 10:15 AM

You’re conflating religion with biology. Two separate things.
The meme about being judged, simply for being gay, is a tired chant. The only pushback you’re likely to encounter in this country is when gays try to impose their worldview on others by demanding changes in those peoples beliefs and lives. Other than that, how are you any different than others? Why do gays seem to actually work at making sure people don’t forget how different they are? You’re not that different at all.
Hey!…nobody really cares. Live long and prosper, just stop whining.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 10:43 AM

So you social cons, like leftists, believe human nature to be shapeable and perfectible instead of fixed and flawed?

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 10:46 AM

I don’t reject ideas because they are faith based. If they stand up to reason they are good, but as faith is a rejection of reason I will not accept supernatural commandments or the coercion of those who do.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 10:39 AM

No, if you thought that way, you would not object when a Christian political action group says “Here is what we think is right, as a Christian political action group”. You’d hear what they brought and if you rejected it as unreasonable, you would say “I’d fight that policy, it is unreasonable for these reasons.”

That is how different faith groups interact politically. There is no monolithic Religious Right viewpoint. For instance, I believe in the Beatitudes, but I think Huckabee was a reckless fool with his clemency.

What you have done is condemn the existence of faith-based political action groups, complained of policies because they originated from a faith perspective, and demand a political debate free of any mention of religion.

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 10:48 AM

If they stand up to reason they are good, but as faith is a rejection of reason I will not accept supernatural commandments or the coercion of those who do.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 10:39 AM

Kind of subjective, isn’t it?
How is faith a rejection of reason? It seems a unreasonable conclusion. But maybe you used the wrong word? How do you define “faith” in how you used it in that claim?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 10:48 AM

I love it when people that say the government should stay out of our private lives are hypocrites that want the government to interfere with peoples private lives when they’re teh gay!

Can we please get a political party that’s fiscally conservative and sends social issues to the states?

kvader on December 17, 2009 at 10:52 AM

So you social cons, like leftists, believe human nature to be shapeable and perfectible instead of fixed and flawed?

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Thats an irrational comparison. I’m guessing you know that.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 10:54 AM

I love it when people that say the government should stay out of our private lives are hypocrites that want the government to interfere with peoples private lives when they’re teh gay!

Can we please get a political party that’s fiscally conservative and sends social issues to the states?

kvader on December 17, 2009 at 10:52 AM

May a hotel refuse to reserve rooms with 1 king bed to two men, if the state law permits it?

That kind of state control?

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 10:58 AM

No, if you thought that way, you would not object when a Christian political action group says “Here is what we think is right, as a Christian political action group”. You’d hear what they brought and if you rejected it as unreasonable, you would say “I’d fight that policy, it is unreasonable for these reasons.”

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 10:48 AM

As a person who was brought up in evangelical Christianity, I can say that I’ve already examined most faith based positions and they are BS.

Kind of subjective, isn’t it?
How is faith a rejection of reason? It seems a unreasonable conclusion. But maybe you used the wrong word? How do you define “faith” in how you used it in that claim?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Faith is accepting an idea while having no objective proof to support you.

Religion is subjective. Anything God says is moral is moral, anything God says is wrong is wrong. No need for reasons or proof.

If God says slaughtering an entire country, man woman and child, is the correct moral action, you do it. If he says to make your wife menstruate in a hole, that’s the moral thing too. It’s at best amoral.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 11:00 AM

No, if you thought that way, you would not object when a Christian political action group says “Here is what we think is right, as a Christian political action group”. You’d hear what they brought and if you rejected it as unreasonable, you would say “I’d fight that policy, it is unreasonable for these reasons.”

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 10:48 AM

As a person who was brought up in evangelical Christianity, I can say that I’ve already examined most faith based positions and they are BS.

Kind of subjective, isn’t it?
How is faith a rejection of reason? It seems a unreasonable conclusion. But maybe you used the wrong word? How do you define “faith” in how you used it in that claim?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Faith is accepting an idea while having no objective proof to support you.

Religion is subjective. Anything God says is moral is moral, anything God says is wrong is wrong. No need for reasons or proof.

If God says slaughtering an entire country, man woman and child, is the correct moral action, you do it. If he says to make your wife menstruate in a hole, that’s the moral thing too. It’s at best amoral.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 11:02 AM

May a hotel refuse to reserve rooms with 1 king bed to two men, if the state law permits it?

That kind of state control?

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Yes, actually. A private business should be able to do as it pleases.

Lehosh on December 17, 2009 at 11:07 AM

People have sex and reproduce REGARDLESS of a social “definition” of their relationship. The problem we have today is the benefits that are associated with this social institution. You can not deny a portion of the population these benefits because of their genital’s of their partner. This in NO way leads to polygamy, people marrying their pets (last time I checked, dogs don’t have legal standing and can not sign a marriage contract), etc.

There is a lack of maturity and logic when it comes to social/religious conservatives’ opposition to same-sex marriage, and that is what is detrimental to society – not the fact that gay people actually have love for their spouse. Love doesn’t see genders. Only bigoted people do.

gopftw on December 16, 2009 at 8:33 PM

Don’t accuse others of tiresome stereotypes and then resort to your own. You rattle off a list of relationships which you consider beyond the pale and then call social conservatives “bigots” for maintaining the same list + homosexual liaisons.

As for slavery, monarchy etc. being omnipresent, that is simply wrong. Use your imagination a bit more- we are not just talking about western society. Think of tribal cultures, for instance. Polygamy may be present, but no one pretends that two men can make up a marriage. It is the most basic of biology that one woman + one man produce children to which they then have a filial bond. Homosexual relationships produce no such societal fruit.

Using civil law to create something that is not inherently possible is to stretch civil law far past its bounds. Do whatever you like with your genitals, love whom you like, arrange your household as you see fit, just don’t ask society to recognize it as something it is not.

evergreen on December 17, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Thats an irrational comparison. I’m guessing you know that.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 10:54 AM

If you recognize that gays are attracted to each other in the same way heterosexual couples are, and that gay people have always existed throughout history, then homosexuality is a part (albeit a small one) of human nature and behavior. It’s not going away.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 11:10 AM

@Itchee why did you change your so why did you change your qualifications that gays wouldn’t stay together long? Wasn’t it because it was the same straw man argument that you just kicked over? Honestly your all over the place on this one…

Zekecorlain on December 17, 2009 at 9:53 AM

Don’t know what you’re getting at. My point was the opposite.
If gays were equal in % of population as heterosexuals, they would stay together in numbers similar to them.

What do you feel was a strawman?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 11:20 AM

then homosexuality is a part (albeit a small one) of human nature and behavior. It’s not going away.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 11:10 AM

I never stated otherwise.
My post, claiming a faulty comparison, was in your seeming comparison of biology to religion.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 11:24 AM

May a hotel refuse to reserve rooms with 1 king bed to two men, if the state law permits it?

That kind of state control?

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Is this reality or are you just making it up?

If state law permits it, then state law permits it.
What are you getting at?….let me guess. You’ll play the race card?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 11:30 AM

So you social cons, like leftists, believe human nature to be shapeable and perfectible instead of fixed and flawed?

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Thats an irrational comparison. I’m guessing you know that.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 10:54 AM

I don’t see anything about religion or bigotry.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 11:32 AM

As a person who was brought up in evangelical Christianity, I can say that I’ve already examined most faith based positions and they are BS.

Well that settles it.
So why do you feel you have the right to impose your beliefs on others again?? Bitterly clinging to your ideology?

Faith is accepting an idea while having no objective proof to support you.

Religion is subjective. Anything God says is moral is moral, anything God says is wrong is wrong. No need for reasons or proof.

If God says slaughtering an entire country, man woman and child, is the correct moral action, you do it. If he says to make your wife menstruate in a hole, that’s the moral thing too. It’s at best amoral.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Thats a completely absurd interpretation of both faith and reason.
I’ve already examined all of those interpretations and they are BS.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 11:37 AM

I don’t see anything about religion or bigotry.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Well, what is your position then? In the context of this thread and your posts, its very much about religion and bigotry.

What was all that “appeasing skygod” crap about if not religion?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 11:42 AM

I don’t see anything about religion or bigotry.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Actually my response was to the irrationality (imo) of your asserting that human nature was not changeable and was fixed?, and that was somehow making “social cons”?? like “leftists”.
Actually, I have no idea what you were getting at. It makes no sense to me.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 11:48 AM

America was founded by people with Christian ethics and backgrounds. Not Jewish (Jews are taught that nationality isn’t important, only their Jewishness), not Muslim (they are taught to opress all non-Muslims and to kill those who refuse to be opressed) atheist activists, gay activists or communists.

If you don’t like it, those of you “useful idiots” that abound out there, you can leave. I know you won’t you will just continue to inflict yourselves on the rest o,f us until either things get real ugly or you win by subversion and election theft.

Spartacus on December 17, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Yeah, I’m sure the Constitutional Convention looked an awful lot like a Promise Keepers rally.

What other competing philosophical worldviews were there to choose from at that point in the 18th century?

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Judaism and Islam were two that the Founders were versed in. Maybe you should learn a bit about the Founders before you flaunt your obvious lack of knowlege. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/benfranklin.htm Maybe it was more like the Oath Keepers than you can handle.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 11:50 AM

America was founded by people with Christian ethics and backgrounds. Not Jewish (Jews are taught that nationality isn’t important, only their Jewishness), not Muslim (they are taught to opress all non-Muslims and to kill those who refuse to be opressed) atheist activists, gay activists or communists.

If you don’t like it, those of you “useful idiots” that abound out there, you can leave. I know you won’t you will just continue to inflict yourselves on the rest o,f us until either things get real ugly or you win by subversion and election theft.

Spartacus on December 17, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Then why did Jefferson and Franklin want the Original seal of the US to depict Moses? Our Founders had deep reverence for JUDEO-Christian values and you also need to get some education about our founding and the faith upon which the Founders relied in it’s creation.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 11:57 AM

What are you getting at?….let me guess. You’ll play the race card?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Did he want a national party that would look the other way while states enshrine orientation alongside race, gender, color, creed, national origin…or would did he want a national party that looked the other way as private citizens ran their business to suit themselves? That’s what I was getting at.

CA has banned refusal of service except for usual business necessity, so it’s settled here.

As a California resident I can’t accept the principle of untrammeled state soveriegnity; if Sacramento weren’t limited by the Bill of Rights we’d spend three months a year as compulsory volunteers in a forced labor camp.

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Jesus came to reform the Jews, and he paid for it with his life. From the list I saw, they were all Christian, not Jewish, not Muslim, not Kabbala, not flaming Grenwich Village homosexuals, most certainly not communists.

What we know as America we owe to a bunch of straight white capitalist Christians. The is what the left is trying to destroy or de-legitimize. Anyone pretending to be Conservative who supports any part of that agenda is a RINO and needs to be booted out of the tent as quickly as possible.

Spartacus on December 17, 2009 at 12:31 PM

The Founding Fathers did an awful lot of moralizing, based on a Christian god worldview. If you actually adhered to the political ideals of the founding, you’d be a conservative. As it presently stands, you’re a libertarian with anarchist leanings who is masquerading as a conservative. Or possibly you just don’t know what a conservative really is.

platypus on December 17, 2009 at 10:16 AM

Oh puh-LEEZ. This is Social Conservative blathering at its worst. Yes the Founding Fathers were deeply devout and often expressed that

in their private writings.

Let’s take a look at how they incorporated that into their structure of government, hmmmm?

OOPS. They didn’t.

And as far as where libertarians stand on the political spectrum, I refer you to one of those Founding Fathers you falsely lean upon, namely, Thomas Jefferson.

Social Conservative, for the time being, your day is done. For the betterment of all, and the sake of the society you profess to love, kindly sit down and shut up for a while?

Thanks in advance.

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Because historically they have seen that it is destructive…tell me, after all these hundred of thousands of years, point out the civilization that has flourished embracing homosexuality, not tolerating (we do that) but actually embracing it.
right2bright on December 17, 2009 at 10:34 AM

This is a brilliant argument — to anyone with a high-school education or less.

Care to name a society that has had its downfall result from embracing homosexuality?

Please make sure you understand the meaning of the phrase “result from”?

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Don’t accuse others of tiresome stereotypes and then resort to your own. You rattle off a list of relationships which you consider beyond the pale and then call social conservatives “bigots” for maintaining the same list + homosexual liaisons.

As for slavery, monarchy etc. being omnipresent, that is simply wrong. Use your imagination a bit more- we are not just talking about western society. Think of tribal cultures, for instance. Polygamy may be present, but no one pretends that two men can make up a marriage. It is the most basic of biology that one woman + one man produce children to which they then have a filial bond. Homosexual relationships produce no such societal fruit.

Using civil law to create something that is not inherently possible is to stretch civil law far past its bounds. Do whatever you like with your genitals, love whom you like, arrange your household as you see fit, just don’t ask society to recognize it as something it is not.

evergreen on December 17, 2009 at 11:07 AM

LOL. You gotta love these Religious Right crackpots. They see the whole basis of the state’s recognition of marriage as being in furtherance of expanding the population. I call this the “headcount theory.”

Sorry to tell you, Religious Right crackpost, but the only country where the state takes a keen interest in reproduction is China. Maybe we’d all be better off if you took a missionary posting there for a while, hmmmm?

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:52 PM

America was founded by people with Christian ethics and backgrounds. Not Jewish (Jews are taught that nationality isn’t important, only their Jewishness), not Muslim (they are taught to opress all non-Muslims and to kill those who refuse to be opressed) atheist activists, gay activists or communists.

If you don’t like it, those of you “useful idiots” that abound out there, you can leave. I know you won’t you will just continue to inflict yourselves on the rest o,f us until either things get real ugly or you win by subversion and election theft.

Spartacus on December 17, 2009 at 11:49 AM

LOL Gotta be a troll.

Or someone who lives in a trailer park and loves pro wrestling.

Not sure which is worse. LOL

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Then why did Jefferson and Franklin want the Original seal of the US to depict Moses? Our Founders had deep reverence for JUDEO-Christian values and you also need to get some education about our founding and the faith upon which the Founders relied in it’s creation.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 11:57 AM

LOL And they wanted unicorns and rainbows too, right?

Maaaaaaybe someone needs to pay just a little less attention to World Net Daily, hmmmmm? LOL

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:56 PM

Oh puh-LEEZ. This is Social Conservative blathering at its worst. Yes the Founding Fathers were deeply devout and often expressed that
in their private writings.
Let’s take a look at how they incorporated that into their structure of government, hmmmm?
voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:39 PM

You mean like George Washington’s First Inaugural Address
given in 1789?

Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.

I realize that this wasn’t a private writing. But, it will do.

kingsjester on December 17, 2009 at 12:56 PM

If you recognize that gays are attracted to each other in the same way heterosexual couples are, and that gay people have always existed throughout history, then homosexuality is a part (albeit a small one) of human nature and behavior. It’s not going away.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 11:10 AM

No one says it is. However, gays cannot be attracted to each other in the same way heterosexual couples are. Men and women are attracted to each other partly- mostly?- from a biological imperative to reproduce. Basic human survival is at stake where heterosexual relationships are concerned, not just emotions and sexual fulfillment. That is why society has a greater imperative to support them. There is no such overriding rationale for privileging a homosexual liaison over any other sort of domestic arrangement.

And yes (before someone says it), not all marriages produce children, however that is the natural end (telos) of a marriage. Whatever homosexual relationships offer in terms of benefits, by their very nature they can’t provide that.

evergreen on December 17, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Sorry to tell you, Religious Right crackpost, but the only country where the state takes a keen interest in reproduction is China. Maybe we’d all be better off if you took a missionary posting there for a while, hmmmm?

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Only decadent cultures disregard the basics of survival and societal thriving, and they aren’t around very long to celebrate their “enlightenment.”

evergreen on December 17, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Oh puh-LEEZ. This is Social Conservative blathering at its worst. Yes the Founding Fathers were deeply devout and often expressed that

in their private writings.

Let’s take a look at how they incorporated that into their structure of government, hmmmm?

OOPS. They didn’t.

And as far as where libertarians stand on the political spectrum, I refer you to one of those Founding Fathers you falsely lean upon, namely, Thomas Jefferson.

Social Conservative, for the time being, your day is done. For the betterment of all, and the sake of the society you profess to love, kindly sit down and shut up for a while?

Thanks in advance.

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:39 PM

No need for thanks because it’s not going to happen. The Founders didn’t hide their religion and did in fact. Read the Northwest Ordinance and learn something. Perhaps, since it’s not written in Latin, you won’t understand it, so I will highlight the key parts for you…The Northwest Ordinance contains these words: Religion, Morality and Knowledge being essential to good government, school and the means of instruction shall forever be encouraged.

Ever read George Washington’s Innuageral Addresses? Here’s a sampling: it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States.

Jefferson’s address: And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity.

Madison’s Address: But the source to which I look or the aids which alone can supply my deficiencies is in the well-tried intelligence and virtue of my fellow-citizens, and in the counsels of those representing them in the other departments associated in the care of the national interests. In these my confidence will under every difficulty be best placed, next to that which we have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best hopes for the future.

I guess the fact that church services were held in the House of Representatives during the Jefferson and Madison adminsitrations doesn’t reflect the intent of our Founders when it comes to the place of religion or God in the public square.

That was hardly a “private writing”! I will sit down and shut up when morons like you stop bloviating and learn a little history. TYVM.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Let’s take a look at how they incorporated that into their structure of government, hmmmm?
voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Okay. How’s this?

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Again, it’s not a private writing. But, it appears to be pretty mindful of The Creator.

kingsjester on December 17, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Care to name a society that has had its downfall result from embracing homosexuality?

Please make sure you understand the meaning of the phrase “result from”?

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Trick question, because 21st century homosexual culture is unique. The examples most commonly cited as “homosexual” would more closely fit our modern discussion of “bisexual”. The Romans, for one, were eager to portray an excessive focus on sensual pleasure as a cause for the downfall and subjugation of Hellenistic kingdoms to their City. You can also look at the Ming Emperors, locked away with their wives and eunuchs.

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 1:08 PM

kingsjester on December 17, 2009 at 12:56 PM

Great minds and all.

Another not so “private writing” was the first Thanksgiving Proclaimation by Washington which decreed the day “to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.”

In fact the President of the United States said:

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houfes of Congress have, by their joint committee, requefted me “to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to eftablifh a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 1:10 PM

Ed, I believe one of the biggest issues that the Democrats are inherently unable to address is simple, “Get the government out of my life.”

I know *I* want LESS regulation, FEWER laws, LESS government invasion of my life, and equality of treatment for all.

Therefore, I oppose both Republican and Democratic party initiatives to insert the government into a person’s life. This particularly holds for the Federal government, which is so far removed from my life it inherently cannot have any notion of what might or might not be best for me. Social engineering on EITHER side of the aisle is anathema.

That means some of your personal cherished agendas are poison as well as agendas from the left.

Get Out Of MY Life! I despise busy-bodies of ALL kinds.

{^_^}

herself on December 17, 2009 at 1:15 PM

That is why society has a greater imperative to support them.

evergreen on December 17, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Mmmmm cultural collectivism. Society has no imperative to support any relationship.

Culture, society, and monogamous relationships HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION; individuals do and they \all have the same rights.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 1:32 PM

OK, I have no problems with them being there and they should, if they believe in the core principles, but I am so sick of HotAir airing gay issues. You guys need to hug a gay and get it over with. I for one, will never feel comfortable around a gay person. I understand they feel they are missing some rights, but their lifestyle is wrong, and should not be condoned. Basically, if you are a group, and you believe in the principles, then allow them in. While in the larger group, stay away from the areas you wont agree on, like gay issues. Stick to the main problems you all agree on.

And I wish for a day, we could go without HotAir talking about less than 10% of the population, and maybe 1% of them even care about pushing their agenda, well, except HotAir loves to push their agenda for that 1%.

WoosterOh on December 17, 2009 at 1:35 PM

In fact the First President of the United States said:

Just as Jesus willed it, marriage is a blessed sacrament between a dude and his special lady. Never let the Sodomy Lobby get their hands on it.

After that he retired to read “A Purpose Driven Life”.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 1:38 PM

????? If you think homosexual relationships harm no one, you need to talk to some children of homosexual parents. Much like children of divorce, children of parents in homosexual relationships aren’t always unharmed by that decision. Sorry if you don’t care to see that engaging in certain behaviors has ripple effects within society.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 6:13 PM

I do know kids raised by gays and kids whose parents got divorced. They are no more likely to be harmed than the children of straights or women who stay with a guy that slaps them around. The idea that gays are bad for socieety is communist propaganda that you can look up and see was created by Marxists. What you just said is no different than what Castro has. So who’s really on the right here?

Rob Taylor on December 16, 2009 at 10:17 PM

Thank you.

It’s sad to watch a thread full of thoughtful, capable, “good” conservatives devolve into such spiteful, shameful bigotry.

The worst part about it is that many so-called Christians abandon their teaching when raging against the gay-machine.

I don’t care what any of you call me in response to my allegation. Judging by some the sputum spewed herein I should garner some pretty hearty attacks. Thank you in advance.

The vile-bile being spilled herein gives evidence to a much larger GOP problem.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Culture, society, and monogamous relationships HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION; individuals do and they \all have the same rights.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Then how could you support a group seeking legal guarantees of social acceptance from other groups?

The vile-bile being spilled herein gives evidence to a much larger GOP problem.
The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Unless the President and the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader have switched parties, there’s bipartisan consensus on ignoring the GOPROUD agenda.

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Then how could you support a group seeking legal guarantees of social acceptance from other groups?

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 1:44 PM

I don’t. I support ending government involvement in marriage entirely. Everybody gets civil unions, and you can have your religious marriage ceremony on your own.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Then how could you support a group seeking legal guarantees of social acceptance from other groups?

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 1:44 PM

As far as GOProud goes, my 80% friend is not my 20% enemy.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 1:51 PM

So SCB, they are 80% friend? They support affirmative action for gays, gay marriage, open homosexuality in the military, that right there should be 70% for any conservative. For someone to the right of GW, I would say they are no more than 50% friend, and at that point they can cheer from outside the tent, not drive policy from within it.

Spartacus on December 17, 2009 at 2:04 PM

As far as GOProud goes, my 80% friend is not my 20% enemy.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 1:51 PM

I can’t agree with that anymore, because then I’m told that I conceded that 20% forever.

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 2:09 PM

I don’t. I support ending government involvement in marriage entirely. Everybody gets civil unions, and you can have your religious marriage ceremony on your own.
SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 1:48 PM

That’s consistent.

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 2:10 PM

You know, it’s been a day or so…it doesn’t look like GOPROUD will be excluded…anybody cancel their attendance at CPAC?

Regardless of the subject, if you try to have somebody blackballed because you can’t stand their presence, and you fail to get them excluded, honor compels you either apologize for the insult, or withdraw yourself.

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Except your definition of “Family Unit” isn’t fitting with reality. There are gay couples, where one of the couple has adopted a child. All three of them make up a “Family Unit,” it just doesn’t fit your definition.

I think it would be to the benefit of all if the Federal government gave absolutely NO preference or privilege to individuals, or groups.

If you need assistance, you are means tested for that assistance. That would be the fair way of setting up regulations.

Keith_Indy on December 16, 2009 at 2:11 PM

Notice the inclusion of: IMHO.
Maybe to you my opinion is wrong, but not to many others.
So we can agree to disagree, but IMHO a healthy, married heterosexual couple raisng a child is a much better scenario than a gay couple raising a child, IMHO.
I am, however, not against gay people adopting kids.
But ideally, it’s socially better to promote heterosexual marriage as a jumping off point for procreation.

Badger40 on December 17, 2009 at 2:27 PM

Thank you.

It’s sad to watch a thread full of thoughtful, capable, “good” conservatives devolve into such spiteful, shameful bigotry.

The worst part about it is that many so-called Christians abandon their teaching when raging against the gay-machine.

I don’t care what any of you call me in response to my allegation. Judging by some the sputum spewed herein I should garner some pretty hearty attacks. Thank you in advance.

The vile-bile being spilled herein gives evidence to a much larger GOP problem.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 1:40 PM

RC, you know what happens when you ASSume? Cause you quoted me and then went about Christian-bashing. I’m not a Christian, but you are one bigoted blowhard and that is no assumption since you prove it over and over again. Acknowledging the immorality of homosexual behavior is not “raging” against any machine. The fact that your widdle feewings are hurted because God deems the act of homosexual behavior an abomination and more people revere the word of God than the word of Race Card is TFB in my book…and for the record, my book is not the St. James version.
IDIOT

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 2:33 PM

I support ending government involvement in marriage entirely.
SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 1:48 PM

So polygamy is game?
Civil unions between living and inanimate objects?
Humans & other species?
I don’t like federal intrusion, but the Feds have a vested interest in social stability by rewarding heterosexual behavior.
They need to get rid of no fault divorce & uphold the family as a good thing.
The heterosexual family is the basis for procreation, the raising of well balanced tax-paying citizens etc.
Obviously there’s a lot of disfunction out there.
But consider how much more there was when no fault divorce became the law of the land & how family courts can rip families apart & how easy it is for people to have kids out of wedlock etc….
It’s something we created ourselves & now we have a bunch of citizens who can’t take care of themselves, who are dependent upon the gov, & are raising more generations of toxic citizens.

Badger40 on December 17, 2009 at 2:33 PM

The vile-bile being spilled herein gives evidence to a much larger GOP problem.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 1:40 PM

I guess I wasn’t noticing any gay-bashing here. But I only skimmed the comments.
It’s probably just easier for you to lump us all into one big pile.
I have no problem with the homosexual community as long as they keep to themselves.
That’s not bigoted or racist.
I don’t support them getting ‘married’, but if they want to live with & commit to each other, no one’s stopping them.
I just don’t think their behavior should be socially rewarded.
But I’m not for villifying them.

Badger40 on December 17, 2009 at 2:36 PM

I think it would be to the benefit of all if the Federal government gave absolutely NO preference or privilege to individuals, or groups.

Whats the “preference”?

If I’m understanding what you’re position is, you have a problem with the Federal government giving preference to American citizens over illegals, minorities over whites, and handicapped over the fully abled?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 2:42 PM

It’s probably just easier for you to lump us all into one big pile.

Did I accuse you of anything? When? Be specific. Guilt is the only reason to take blame for something you did not do. If it does not apply, do not reply. Are you feeling guilty? No? Then get out of my cheese-grits.

It’s probably easier for you to completely misread, misrepresent or otherwise malign what I wrote.

If you only skimmed the comments why knee-jerk defense? That’s the same thing libs do…all the time.

Read the entire thread then get back to me. Or you may, as many do, ignore the obvious beam in the party’s eye.

It’s sad to watch a thread full of thoughtful, capable, “good” conservatives devolve into such spiteful, shameful bigotry.

I could see how one might misconstrue my meaning here, especially if one is bound by literal interpretations and avoids all human contact and communication. Every commenter in this thread has not expressed their misgivings cruelly or rudely. But the thread is chock full of insults and lies about gays and homosexuality.

When I walk into a room that stinks, I assume everybody in that room is okay with the smell. Gays are roundly maligned here at HA as evil pedophiles. The attacks don’t stop there. Few others seem willing to speak against this cruelty.

Don’t expect me to stand around while so-called conservatives fling a bunch of dung around while accusing others of being uncivilized.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 2:49 PM

Why are gays so hung up on a word? Back in the day, it was considered an enlightened position to not be bothered by those old uptight paradigms like “marriage”, after all, its just a piece of paper for uptight conservatives.

Whats changed?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 2:50 PM

Badger40 on December 17, 2009 at 2:36 PM


Some of my best friends are black gay bigots.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 2:51 PM

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 2:50 PM

Apparently the definition of “straw man.”

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Some of my best friends are black gay bigots.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 2:51 PM

Look in a mirror, if you can get that log out of your eye and can get off that high horse you road in on.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 2:54 PM

I don’t. I support ending government involvement in marriage entirely. Everybody gets civil unions, and you can have your religious marriage ceremony on your own.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 1:48 PM

What do you mean by “governments involvement”?
It would seem like marriage was established before the US government, and is simply part of the fabric of society. Its not like the understanding of marriage was imposed on a reluctant society after the formation of a government. (I await the pickers of nit)

How does changing that for about 1% of the population make any sense?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 3:00 PM

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 2:54 PM

My horse is not nearly as high as your spelling aptitude.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 3:03 PM

Culture, society, and monogamous relationships HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION; individuals do and they \all have the same rights.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 1:32 PM

What “rights” do a hetro person have that a homo person doesn’t?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 3:07 PM

My horse is not nearly as high as your spelling aptitude.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 3:03 PM

Neither is your IQ obviously.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 3:11 PM

What you are saying is because people with an odd sexual preference claim to have a couple of similar goals to Conservatives, then we should just give up our moral beliefs and support them. Are you nuts? How about they give up their wacky ideas that what they are doing is somehow normal and then we all get along.

SGinNC on December 17, 2009 at 3:13 PM

I do know kids raised by gays and kids whose parents got divorced. They are no more likely to be harmed than the children of straights or women who stay with a guy that slaps them around.

Thats a false comparison, isn’t it?
You’re comparing the home life of those in a comparatively stable environment to those who have gone thru a divorce or are being abused.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 3:16 PM

Neither is your IQ obviously.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 3:11 PM

That was pretty weak. Wanna do-over?

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 3:18 PM

That was pretty weak. Wanna do-over?

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 3:18 PM

Not so weak that you ignored it though. Hmmm

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 3:34 PM

What you are saying is because people with an odd sexual preference claim to have a couple of similar goals to Conservatives, then we should just give up our moral beliefs and support them.

selective outrage and arbitrary morality

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Apparently the definition of “straw man.”

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Point it out to me.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Oh puh-LEEZ. This is Social Conservative blathering at its worst. Yes the Founding Fathers were deeply devout and often expressed that
in their private writings.
Let’s take a look at how they incorporated that into their structure of government, hmmmm?
voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:39 PM

You mean like George Washington’s First Inaugural Address
given in 1789?

Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.
I realize that this wasn’t a private writing. But, it will do.

kingsjester on December 17, 2009 at 12:56 PM

LOL Community College Reading Comprehension strikes again

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 3:40 PM

Not so weak that you ignored it though. Hmmm

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 3:34 PM

After I finish my steak sandwich I will try earnestly to find some humor or intelligence in what you say. I know it’s a longshot but I will try.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 3:40 PM

selective outrage and arbitrary morality

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Thats your claim.

Whats your supporting evidence?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Oh puh-LEEZ. This is Social Conservative blathering at its worst. Yes the Founding Fathers were deeply devout and often expressed that

in their private writings.

Let’s take a look at how they incorporated that into their structure of government, hmmmm?

OOPS. They didn’t.

And as far as where libertarians stand on the political spectrum, I refer you to one of those Founding Fathers you falsely lean upon, namely, Thomas Jefferson.

Social Conservative, for the time being, your day is done. For the betterment of all, and the sake of the society you profess to love, kindly sit down and shut up for a while?

Thanks in advance.

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:39 PM
No need for thanks because it’s not going to happen. The Founders didn’t hide their religion and did in fact. Read the Northwest Ordinance and learn something. Perhaps, since it’s not written in Latin, you won’t understand it, so I will highlight the key parts for you…The Northwest Ordinance contains these words: Religion, Morality and Knowledge being essential to good government, school and the means of instruction shall forever be encouraged.

Ever read George Washington’s Innuageral Addresses? Here’s a sampling: it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States.

Jefferson’s address: And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity.

Madison’s Address: But the source to which I look or the aids which alone can supply my deficiencies is in the well-tried intelligence and virtue of my fellow-citizens, and in the counsels of those representing them in the other departments associated in the care of the national interests. In these my confidence will under every difficulty be best placed, next to that which we have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best hopes for the future.

I guess the fact that church services were held in the House of Representatives during the Jefferson and Madison adminsitrations doesn’t reflect the intent of our Founders when it comes to the place of religion or God in the public square.

That was hardly a “private writing”! I will sit down and shut up when morons like you stop bloviating and learn a little history. TYVM.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 1:05 PM

TL;DR. Another Religious Right loony fails to comprehend the meaning of “structure of government.”

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 3:42 PM

As far as GOProud goes, my 80% friend is not my 20% enemy.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 1:51 PM

I can’t agree with that anymore, because then I’m told that I conceded that 20% forever.

Chris_Balsz

Chris get over it, i kissed a girl and felt up her tits, that doesn’t mean I’m straight. You tolerating something your not participating in just means your more of an adult than most of the commentators on here.

Zekecorlain on December 17, 2009 at 3:43 PM

As far as GOProud goes, my 80% friend is not my 20% enemy.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 1:51 PM

I can’t agree with that anymore, because then I’m told that I conceded that 20% forever.

Chris_Balsz

Chris get over it, i kissed a girl and felt her up, that doesn’t mean I’m straight. You tolerating something your not participating in just means your more of an adult than most of the commentators on here.

Zekecorlain on December 17, 2009 at 3:44 PM

LOL Community College Reading Comprehension strikes again

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 3:40 PM

What a convincing argument.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 3:44 PM

hmm apparently you can’t say t*ts here

Zekecorlain on December 17, 2009 at 3:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7