Video: CPAC boos speaker for condemning invite to gay conservative group

posted at 6:05 pm on February 19, 2010 by Allahpundit

Via Greg Hengler, a clip that’s not as surprising as it may at first seem. The One’s agenda has vaulted fiscal conservatism to the top of the list of right-wing priorities; with even Darth Cheney sanguine about gay marriage, social issues simply don’t have the same bite that they used to. In fact, I’m curious to know if Ed’s gotten the same vibe at the convention that Time magazine’s getting — namely, thanks to the GOP’s tilt towards libertarianism, that the big tent is a little bigger this year than it used to be.

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, which is lobbying to have a 2005 ban on Internet poker lifted – literally one of the last bills passed by the GOP before they lost control of Congress. “In the privacy of our own homes, consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want,” Raymer said. “Gambling is legal in America. They shouldn’t be mandating how we live. If they consider it a sin, they shouldn’t do it. But don’t tell me I can’t do it.”

Ed wrote a solid post supporting GOProud’s participation back before Christmas. Read that as prep for the clip.


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 8 9 10 11 12 14

I simply mean not appealing to religion to justify oneself.

BryanS on February 19, 2010 at 11:55 PM

Fair enough.

Just to explain what I meant by “atheistic”…

Many (athiests) seem to conflate and thus reject as “religious” the two following categories of argument:

1) arguments based on principles gained from divine revelation and which maintain the existence of God based on faith alone.

2) philosophical arguments based on principles which may also be the same as those claimed to be divinely reveled: e.g. the vast majority of people will agree murder is wrong. It just so happens that you can hold murder to be wrong from philosophical reflection or divine dictate (as in the 10 commandments). Similarly, there are philosophical arguments for the existence of God.

Thus one can say “there is a transcendental moral order” without having to base this on the authority of an organized religion.

Many atheists seem to take as understood that the only arguments they will accept are those which include no appeal to any divine order. If the argument involves anything which philosophy and religion have in common, they dismiss it.

I would like to stress I’m not trying to lump you in with any particular group here. Just wanted to explain what I meant more fully–because I like explaining things ;)

darii on February 20, 2010 at 12:20 AM

Nope.
You’re the one who’s wrong and 2Brave is right: our Founding Fathers would completely agree with him!

Jenfidel on February 20, 2010 at 12:14 AM

Nope. A person who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving child out of desperation, I would argue, has performed a moral act, albeit an illegal one. Law and morality are most definitely not one in the same. It’s an established fact accepted by the legal profession that law and morality are in conflict.

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 12:20 AM

State and federal activist judges will not stop
until a national marriage definition is legislated from the bench.

Marriage Amendment is the only way for the people to have a say before the federal judges do.

PrezHussein on February 20, 2010 at 12:20 AM

Do you beleive that homosexuals are born homosexual or do they become homosexual through sexual curiosity etc.?

redridinghood on February 19, 2010 at 11:55 PM

Belief?

I believe there has been no conclusive scientific evidence that it is genetic.

And when I’ve thought about it, it seems extremely counter-intuitive that it could be.

Sexual psychology is way beyond my knowledge, but my opinion is pretty simple. Sexual desire is an extremely powerful physiological urge. Couple that with all the options available, and you get all the possible combinations of perversions, and for men especially.

And I think all religious teachings contain that element of overcoming our baser instincts. I think that the original purpose of marriage was to tame the crude, wild male. It truly serves as the fundamental building block of civilization.

Saltysam on February 20, 2010 at 12:21 AM

And yes, he is trying to force christian morality on CPAC which includes people of different faiths as well as homosexuals.

Benaiah on February 20, 2010 at 12:18 AM

Does that mean the homosexuals are trying to force their morality on the rest of us? Of course it works both ways. But liberals like yourself only ever seem to see one-way streets.

2Brave2Bscared on February 20, 2010 at 12:22 AM

The reason is very simple–discrimination was so rampant, that minorities were relegated to slums. There was no equal opportunity to advance one’s station in life. Note, I do not care about equal results, only equal opportunity.

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 12:05 AM

You are correct on what “is” the reality, but the funny part is did that law really change anything? I would contend it has not. African-Americans, who were obiviously the prime target group of such a law for obvious reasons, still disproportionally live in less than average, for AMerica, housing. You still hear stories, unfortunately, of African-Americans wanting to buy a house or move into an apartment getting rejected once the property owner sees the prospective buyer/renter (e.g., Sorry, just rented teh partment).

I just have my reservations that government laws can tell people how to feel about another person/group, but I am all for private social groups berating and shaming a person/company that is unnecessarily discriminatory.

WashJeff on February 20, 2010 at 12:23 AM

Spoken like a true socon–unable to distinguish between law and morality. Thankfully our founding fathers disagreed with you.

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 12:12 AM

Is that why sodomy was a felony in every state in their Union?

Chris_Balsz on February 20, 2010 at 12:23 AM

Spoken like a true socon–unable to distinguish between law and morality. Thankfully our founding fathers disagreed with you.

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 12:12 AM

OK. How would you define law then?

2Brave2Bscared on February 20, 2010 at 12:24 AM

I have known many sailors in my career who got herpes and even hep from bloody gums or sores.

Squid Shark on February 20, 2010 at 12:10 AM

Absolutely. But clap was the mentioned disease, not herpes or hepititis. Note that the mode of transmission for many diseases is via entry into the bloodstream from a wound. You are describing two such possibilities. Tetanus is yet another.

Anal intercourse is also in this group. Tearing of the anal cavity as a result of such sex permits entry of the HIV virus into the bloodstream from semen deposited by a male. That is the most common means by which HIV is transmitted. Secondary vectors are blood-blood transfers (transfusions, dirty needles, etc.)

unclesmrgol on February 20, 2010 at 12:25 AM

Many (athiests) seem to conflate and thus reject as “religious” the two following categories of argument:

1) arguments based on principles gained from divine revelation and which maintain the existence of God based on faith alone.

2) philosophical arguments based on principles which may also be the same as those claimed to be divinely reveled: e.g. the vast majority of people will agree murder is wrong. It just so happens that you can hold murder to be wrong from philosophical reflection or divine dictate (as in the 10 commandments). Similarly, there are philosophical arguments for the existence of God.

Thus one can say “there is a transcendental moral order” without having to base this on the authority of an organized religion.

Many atheists seem to take as understood that the only arguments they will accept are those which include no appeal to any divine order. If the argument involves anything which philosophy and religion have in common, they dismiss it.

I would like to stress I’m not trying to lump you in with any particular group here. Just wanted to explain what I meant more fully–because I like explaining things ;)

darii on February 20, 2010 at 12:20 AM

Heh. Explaining is good. Then, of course, you refer to a transcendental moral order, and I think even Hitchens would appeal to such a concept when asked where does morality come from. (I think I recall him doing just that in one of his debates with a creationist)

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 12:27 AM

Nope. A person who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving child out of desperation, I would argue, has performed a moral act, albeit an illegal one. Law and morality are most definitely not one in the same. It’s an established fact accepted by the legal profession that law and morality are in conflict.

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 12:20 AM

Actually, according to Aquinas, this would not be illegal, for all things are common in necessity. He gives this specific example. And, since all human law ought to be in accord with natural law, this act would not be truly illegal, although he may well be prosecuted for it.

I guess it depends on what you’re conception of law is. As a Thomist, I say human law, in order to be just and right and to compel men force beyond that of fear of punishment, must be in accord with natural law. An unjust law is no law at all. Although that doesn’t mean the state won’t enforce it anyway (e.g. dictators and tyrants)

darii on February 20, 2010 at 12:28 AM

canopfor on February 19, 2010 at 11:50 PM
And that’s why I look at Tammy Bruce as the enemy.

I don’t give a rip if liberals look at me funny. “I love it. Bring it.”

2Brave2Bscared on February 19, 2010 at 11:53 PM

2Brave2Bscared: To be honest I was cruising through,

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/

and saw the link,to Tammy Bruce,I just
thought it would add to the debate,I
have never heard her speak!!:)

canopfor on February 20, 2010 at 12:28 AM

State and federal activist judges will not stop
until a national marriage definition is legislated from the bench.

Marriage Amendment is the only way for the people to have a say before the federal judges do.

PrezHussein on February 20, 2010 at 12:20 AM

Unfortunately, though I do not have much worry about the law itself, you are probably correct that the bench will legislate when clearly it should not be getting in the way. The states should just sort it all out themselves–most likely there will not be consistent law among the states for quite a long time, but that’s not the end of the world.

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 12:29 AM

Do you beleive that homosexuals are born homosexual or do they become homosexual through sexual curiosity etc.?

redridinghood on February 19, 2010 at 11:55 PM

Curiosity most likely plays a role in far fewer cases than confusion and possible abuse. There may be other contributing factors (increased testosterone or estrogen), but that doesn’t make you gay.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 12:30 AM

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 12:27 AM

;)

darii on February 20, 2010 at 12:30 AM

Nope. A person who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving child out of desperation, I would argue, has performed a moral act, albeit an illegal one. Law and morality are most definitely not one in the same. It’s an established fact accepted by the legal profession that law and morality are in conflict.

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 12:20 AM

And I would argue that laws designed to prevent the transmission of HIV would also be moral. And I would argue that any private action by individuals to shield themselves from behavior conducive to the transmission of HIV would be moral as well.

Heh.

unclesmrgol on February 20, 2010 at 12:30 AM

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 12:29 AM

I think supporting Federalism on this issue is the most important compromise we can make.

Squid Shark on February 20, 2010 at 12:32 AM

You are correct on what “is” the reality, but the funny part is did that law really change anything? I would contend it has not. African-Americans, who were obiviously the prime target group of such a law for obvious reasons, still disproportionally live in less than average, for AMerica, housing. You still hear stories, unfortunately, of African-Americans wanting to buy a house or move into an apartment getting rejected once the property owner sees the prospective buyer/renter (e.g., Sorry, just rented teh partment).

I just have my reservations that government laws can tell people how to feel about another person/group, but I am all for private social groups berating and shaming a person/company that is unnecessarily discriminatory.

WashJeff on February 20, 2010 at 12:23 AM

Government cannot change minds with laws, but those denied housing because they were a minority have legal recourse now. And trust me, as someone renting out some of my property, the risk is real you’d get sued if you even try to discriminate. Again, equal opportunity is all that is required, not equal results. Our president had no problem hobnobbing with the upper crust of Chicago. Rich minorities live where they want because they can.

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 12:34 AM

I think supporting Federalism on this issue is the most important compromise we can make.

Squid Shark on February 20, 2010 at 12:32 AM

Ageed, but Gay activists groups need to also respect Federalism. When they lose in a state legislator, respect the people’s will. When traditional marriage people lose, as we did in Vermont, respect that also. Just stay out of the courts!

WashJeff on February 20, 2010 at 12:35 AM

But I do know plenty about you. For example, I bet you you’re not so into “small government” that you support the complete dismantling of the NEA, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and a myriad of other unconstitutional programs and institutions that 99% of “conservatives” are happy enough to, at best, merely reform.

Yes, actually, I am into those ideas. I can also see the Dept. of Education being either reformed or dismantled, as well as the IRS. In other words, you don’t know jack s**t about my politics, you dipstick.

Don’t try to so that you are either. I know your type. I know what kind of “conservative” you are. You’re know conservative at all. You’re a liberal.

2Brave2Bscared on February 20, 2010 at 12:16 AM

So wait…you ask me a question and then refuse to listen to my answer? Wonderful. Two things are clear: you don’t know who or what I am, and we all know exactly what you are.

MadisonConservative on February 20, 2010 at 12:38 AM

I just have my reservations that government laws can tell people how to feel about another person/group, but I am all for private social groups berating and shaming a person/company that is unnecessarily discriminatory.

WashJeff on February 20, 2010 at 12:23 AM

Agreed. Last thing we want is thoughtcrime laws on the books. Oh wait *cough*hatecrimebill*cough*

darii on February 20, 2010 at 12:39 AM

I think supporting Federalism on this issue is the most important compromise we can make.

Squid Shark on February 20, 2010 at 12:32 AM

Ageed, but Gay activists groups need to also respect Federalism. When they lose in a state legislator, respect the people’s will. When traditional marriage people lose, as we did in Vermont, respect that also. Just stay out of the courts!

WashJeff on February 20, 2010 at 12:35 AM

Two smartest posts yet.

Laura in Maryland on February 20, 2010 at 12:39 AM

Does that mean the homosexuals are trying to force their morality on the rest of us? Of course it works both ways. But liberals like yourself only ever seem to see one-way streets.

2Brave2Bscared

Please tell me how this group is forcing their morality on you by simply taking part in CPAC.

Idiot in the video is basically saying, “I don’t agree with them so they shouldn’t be allowed.” That’s forcing his morality on everyone else at the conference.

The gay group simply wants to have a voice there which you can choose to listen to or not. This isn’t a freedom of speech issue but it certainly seems like those who believe in it would be behind the idea of them having their say whether they agree with them or not.

Benaiah on February 20, 2010 at 12:39 AM

2Brave2Bscared on February 20, 2010 at 12:24 AM

darii on February 20, 2010 at 12:28 AM

Law is whatever the books say it is. Sometimes laws are passed for a greater good. I think of natural law as the realm of morality. The legal system we employ is in conflict with natural law and for good reason cannot be based on it.

The stealing of a loaf of bread example shows a very good law–not allowing theft–to be in conflict with what we all may agree is a moral thing to do. The baker who sells that bread needs his property protected in order to ensure a well ordered society and to allow capitalism to work its magic of increasing the wealth of everyone. The law as written, then, values property in this case more than life. A jury, if brought to trial, may use their instincts to not convict, but nobody would be surprised if a jury still convicted.

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 12:42 AM

2Brave2Bscared,

MadisonConservative is legit. Don’t always agree with him, but he is not a liberal.

But if throwing out terms like that makes you feel better, you can call me a RINO. I won’t hold it against you.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 12:42 AM

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 12:42 AM

Again, depends on your definition and account of law. I won’t disagree that they can be in conflict. However, they can also be in harmony. It all depends on whether the law is just or not. And it seems to me that the bread example is a case where you include a caveat which is left up to a judge and/or jury to decide.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 12:44 AM

Ageed, but Gay activists groups need to also respect Federalism. When they lose in a state legislator, respect the people’s will. When traditional marriage people lose, as we did in Vermont, respect that also. Just stay out of the courts!

WashJeff on February 20, 2010 at 12:35 AM

If only Roe v Wade were not foisted on us. We’d have a similar situation–more complicated patchwork of laws and certainly still a contentions issue, but a lot less political strife.

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 12:45 AM

Agreed. Last thing we want is thoughtcrime laws on the books. Oh wait *cough*hatecrimebill*cough*

darii on February 20, 2010 at 12:39 AM

Yeah–hate crime, or any perceived effects on society are for the sentencing phase. Prosecuting hate, well that’s a slippery slope. The Canadian Human Rights Act was an unmitigated disaster. Let’s hope we learn from that to never emulate it in the US.

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 12:48 AM

The gay group simply wants to have a voice there which you can choose to listen to or not. This isn’t a freedom of speech issue but it certainly seems like those who believe in it would be behind the idea of them having their say whether they agree with them or not.

Benaiah on February 20, 2010 at 12:39 AM

He got the loudest boos for challenging the notion of homosexuality as innate, not for denouncing the invitation.

Chris_Balsz on February 20, 2010 at 12:49 AM

Again, depends on your definition and account of law. I won’t disagree that they can be in conflict. However, they can also be in harmony. It all depends on whether the law is just or not. And it seems to me that the bread example is a case where you include a caveat which is left up to a judge and/or jury to decide.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 12:44 AM

The jury SHOULD convict if they followed the law. But their instincts prevent them from doing the lawful thing when they resort to their sense of morality.

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 12:49 AM

I believe there has been no conclusive scientific evidence that it is genetic.

And when I’ve thought about it, it seems extremely counter-intuitive that it could be.
Saltysam on February 20, 2010 at 12:21 AM

Sorry – Believe. I blame it on the NyQuil cold medicine.

We have children that are born as hermaphrodites or with down syndrome, so what makes you think a child couldn’t be born with more or less female/male genetic tendencies?

redridinghood on February 20, 2010 at 12:50 AM

The stealing of a loaf of bread example shows a very good law–not allowing theft–to be in conflict with what we all may agree is a moral thing to do. The baker who sells that bread needs his property protected in order to ensure a well ordered society and to allow capitalism to work its magic of increasing the wealth of everyone. The law as written, then, values property in this case more than life. A jury, if brought to trial, may use their instincts to not convict, but nobody would be surprised if a jury still convicted.

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 12:42 AM

As usual, from most of your comments I’ve read on this thread, you have tunnel vision.

The law as written, then, values property in this case more than life.

No. The law, recognizes that the baker, who is living, has a family, who are living, and must nourish their lives. There is no implication that the law values property more than life.

The law recognizes that theft of what sustains life, so that the thief may sustain his own is chaos.

Saltysam on February 20, 2010 at 12:51 AM

If only Roe v Wade were not foisted on us. We’d have a similar situation–more complicated patchwork of laws and certainly still a contentions issue, but a lot less political strife.

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 12:45 AM

The GOP never seems to explain to the masses what overturning Roe v. Wade would mean for the country. I consider myself Pro-life, I want this case overturned, but I do not want some law at the federal level that bans abortion. Like gay marriage, I am up for the battle 50 times(57 times for Obama) over. Some states pro-life wins. Some states “the thing in the womb is just a clumb of cells” wins. Push the power down!

WashJeff on February 20, 2010 at 12:54 AM

I’ll just end with some scripture before I head to bed.

1If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 1 Corinthians 13:1

Watch the video of this guy again. Where’s the love? Is he gathering or scattering the flock?

Benaiah on February 20, 2010 at 12:54 AM

As usual, from most of your comments I’ve read on this thread, you have tunnel vision.

The law as written, then, values property in this case more than life.

No. The law, recognizes that the baker, who is living, has a family, who are living, and must nourish their lives. There is no implication that the law values property more than life.

The law recognizes that theft of what sustains life, so that the thief may sustain his own is chaos.

Saltysam on February 20, 2010 at 12:51 AM

If I have tunnel vision, then your problem is being obtuse :)

There is no special law of theft of things that sustain life. It was just an example of where one breaks a law in response to a moral dilemma. I explain the justification for why the law exists in the post–and it’s a good reason.

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 12:55 AM

In poll after poll, a huge majority of Americans think America is on the wrong track overall.

America in 2010 has far, far bigger problems than whether CPAC is welcoming a conservative gay group. Puh-leeze. It’s a doofus move to speak divisively from the podium over such a way-way-down-the-list agenda item.

This is the year of “Just Win Baby.” Gays vote, and I am damn glad to get their votes for fiscal-conservative candidates. This fellow in the video needs to get off the stage and get the hell out of the way.

Edouard on February 20, 2010 at 12:56 AM

Yep. Sarah sure was smart to boycott this clusterf***. It’s hard to overstate the stupidity of people claiming to be conservative small government types while pandering to a group looking for special favors and privileges based on disgusting and dangerous sexual activities.

1.5% of the population cannot provide enough positive benefits to justify the negative effects they inflict on the other 98.5% of the population. In my view, they provide no benefits but that’s just my view.

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 12:56 AM

The GOP never seems to explain to the masses what overturning Roe v. Wade would mean for the country. I consider myself Pro-life, I want this case overturned, but I do not want some law at the federal level that bans abortion. Like gay marriage, I am up for the battle 50 times(57 times for Obama) over. Some states pro-life wins. Some states “the thing in the womb is just a clumb of cells” wins. Push the power down!

WashJeff on February 20, 2010 at 12:54 AM

lol. I have to say it was a bit funny to see liberals briefly flirt with federalism when George W was SoCon in Chief.

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 12:57 AM

what makes you think a child couldn’t be born with more or less female/male genetic tendencies?

redridinghood on February 20, 2010 at 12:50 AM

I don’t.

Homosexuality is not genetic tendency of the opposite sex. It is engaging in sexual activity with the same sex.

We have children that are born as hermaphrodites or with down syndrome

redridinghood on February 20, 2010 at 12:50 AM

I do not believe that homosexuality is a genetic defect.

Sorry.

You can, of course, believe away.

Saltysam on February 20, 2010 at 12:58 AM

Some states pro-life wins. Some states “the thing in the womb is just a clumb of cells” wins. Push the power down!

WashJeff on February 20, 2010 at 12:54 AM

Whether or not an abortion is murder isn’t something to be decided by the states: it is murder no matter who says it isn’t or what state the abortion’s performed in.

Being pro-Life is a statement for Federalism; the federal court via Roe v. Wade is ordering those of us who consider abortion to be infanticide to live with its committal by their federal fiat.
You’d be suprised by how many states would now declare abortion to be illegal and certainly find late-term abortion illegal.
(Thank God for President Bush’s ban on those!)

Jenfidel on February 20, 2010 at 1:00 AM

obtuse :)

There is no special law of theft of things that sustain life. It was just an example of where one breaks a law in response to a moral dilemma. I explain the justification for why the law exists in the post–and it’s a good reason.

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 12:55 AM

I’ll let that speak for itself.

Saltysam on February 20, 2010 at 1:00 AM

Yep. Sarah sure was smart to boycott this clusterf***. It’s hard to overstate the stupidity of people claiming to be conservative small government types while pandering to a group looking for special favors and privileges based on disgusting and dangerous sexual activities.

1.5% of the population cannot provide enough positive benefits to justify the negative effects they inflict on the other 98.5% of the population. In my view, they provide no benefits but that’s just my view.

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 12:56 AM

Amen, platypus! I’m with you!
Not only did Sarah avoid it (largely due to the fact that the John Birch Society was another sponsor), but even Rush gave his tribute to Ed by videophone.
CPAC Conservatives aren’t really my kind of Conservatives.

Jenfidel on February 20, 2010 at 1:03 AM

The jury SHOULD convict if they followed the law. But their instincts prevent them from doing the lawful thing when they resort to their sense of morality.

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 12:49 AM

And all I’m arguing is we can write laws how we wish. If it’s not immoral to steal to keep from starving, then it should not be illegal. And the law can be written to take that into account. I’m not saying the law as currently written covers such cases, but it ought to.

Although I do recognize that the lack of exception clauses prevents large amounts of theft which would be dishonestly justified as resulting from “a state of necessity.”

darii on February 20, 2010 at 1:04 AM

And I would argue that laws designed to prevent the transmission of HIV would also be moral. And I would argue that any private action by individuals to shield themselves from behavior conducive to the transmission of HIV would be moral as well.
Heh.
unclesmrgol on February 20, 2010 at 12:30 AM

Can you elaborate on these hypothetical laws? I’m curious about what your thoughts might be here, beyond a preconceived loony tune characterization.

disillusioned on February 20, 2010 at 1:04 AM

I can also see the Dept. of Education being either reformed or dismantled, as well as the IRS.

MadisonLiberal on February 20, 2010 at 12:38 AM

Either reformed OR dismantled, eh? So reforming it would be an acceptable option to you… Just as I thought.

In other words…

In other words, I was completely right about you.

So wait…you ask me a question and then refuse to listen to my answer?

No, I’ve listened. I just don’t believe you. Not about any seriousness you have of wanting to dismantle these institutions, that is.

I figured you’d say something like you did to try to prove to me (and yourself) that you really are in favor of restoring our Constitution. Saying it half-heartedly like you did after someone has pressed you on it is one thing. But people who truly believe in something can’t help but talk about it constantly; it’s a passion. And I know more than enough about your type and seen more than enough of your posts to know that things like dismantling the Dept. of Education, social security, medicare, etc. (as opposed to “fixing” them with reform) are not very high at all on your priority list, if they’re on your priority list at all, which, as I’ve said, I highly doubt.

2Brave2Bscared on February 20, 2010 at 1:06 AM

You’d be suprised by how many states would now declare abortion to be illegal and certainly find late-term abortion illegal.
(Thank God for President Bush’s ban on those!)

Jenfidel on February 20, 2010 at 1:00 AM

I would guess that late term abortion would be banned in greater than 40 states. Abortion with the typical caveats that people site, I would say 20 to 25 states.

WashJeff on February 20, 2010 at 1:07 AM

MadisonConservative is legit. Don’t always agree with him, but he is not a liberal.

But if throwing out terms like that makes you feel better, you can call me a RINO. I won’t hold it against you.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 12:42 AM

You have your opinions, I have mine. I would also feel safe in assuming that our definition of “conservative” are radically different. I hold to a traditional definition, whereas you probably hold to a modern definition.

2Brave2Bscared on February 20, 2010 at 1:09 AM

MadisonConservative is legit. Don’t always agree with him, but he is not a liberal.

But if throwing out terms like that makes you feel better, you can call me a RINO. I won’t hold it against you.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 12:42 AM

You have your opinions, I have mine. I would also feel safe in assuming that our definition of “conservative” are radically different. I hold to a traditional definition, whereas you probably hold to a modern definition.

2Brave2Bscared on February 20, 2010 at 1:10 AM

obtuse :)

There is no special law of theft of things that sustain life. It was just an example of where one breaks a law in response to a moral dilemma. I explain the justification for why the law exists in the post–and it’s a good reason.

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 12:55 AM

I’ll let that speak for itself.

Saltysam on February 20, 2010 at 1:00 AM

Sorry, I think I understand what you meant. You misunderstood my comment. It’s the “Baker” thing. I was not refering to the actual “bread” as sustenance, I was refering to the property itself sustaining the lives of the baker’s family as this is the method by which they provide for themselves.

It is not the law valuing property more than life. It is the law valuing the life of the property owner, more than the thief.

That’s all.

I think you like to embellish the facts.

Saltysam on February 20, 2010 at 1:11 AM

And all I’m arguing is we can write laws how we wish. If it’s not immoral to steal to keep from starving, then it should not be illegal. And the law can be written to take that into account. I’m not saying the law as currently written covers such cases, but it ought to.

Although I do recognize that the lack of exception clauses prevents large amounts of theft which would be dishonestly justified as resulting from “a state of necessity.”

darii on February 20, 2010 at 1:04 AM

I think the law ought not be changed in that case. The person whose property was taken needs to have the assurance of the law that his property will be protected. It is much more materialist of a view than Christian morality would allow for, but defending property rights is a moral imperative. Without the protection of property it is quite possible the individual baking that bread wouldn’t have had the job/business to do that task in the first place.

On another note, listening to Fox News rebroadcast the Tiger Woods circus/apology, he cites is stray from Buddhism to explain his recent failings. He’s going to regain his center now and return to Buddhism.

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 1:12 AM

Is that why sodomy was a felony in every state in their Union?

Chris_Balsz on February 20, 2010 at 12:23 AM

It still is, even between a man and his wife, in Maryland and Virginia (I doubt they’re the only states where that is the case; they’re just the only states I’ve happened to have lived in). Fortunately they don’t enforce it. The Founders didn’t get everything right though; the Enlightenment had not completely percolated through society (cf. slavery, human).

hicsuget on February 20, 2010 at 1:12 AM

Gays vote, and I am damn glad to get their votes for fiscal-conservative candidates. This fellow in the video needs to get off the stage and get the hell out of the way.

Edouard on February 20, 2010 at 12:56 AM

Assuming that there is a gay gender, their votes amount to a teacup versus a swimming pool. Because their votes are numerically insignificant, they are not entitled to any special attention.

But of course attention is all they want. And the CPAC political idiots provide them with it.

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 1:14 AM

2Brave2Bscared on February 20, 2010 at 1:10 AM

Perhaps. Not sure what you’re taking as definitions of conservative here…(I’m assuming small government and strict adherence to the principles of federalism is “old” conservatism).

darii on February 20, 2010 at 1:14 AM

hicsuget on February 20, 2010 at 1:12 AM

The Founders were right about that. Sodomy has no place in a moral and healthy society, let alone same-sex “marriage.”

2Brave2Bscared on February 20, 2010 at 1:15 AM

There are some things that will destroy our country if we encourage it. Homosexuality is one of them. It doesn’t have to be because of fire and brimstone, just simple demographic destruction accelerated will do it just fine.

I don’t take issue with Liz Cheney being Gay. I do take issue if Liz Cheney pushes the gay agenda.

Gay Republican groups inherently push their agenda by their very nature. How about just Republican groups instead?

scotash on February 20, 2010 at 1:19 AM

Saltysam on February 20, 2010 at 12:58 AM

I’ve known a few homosexuals that have confessed that life would have been a lot better & easier had they been born heterosexual. Like I said before, I have not walked in their shoes. Only God knows.

redridinghood on February 20, 2010 at 1:20 AM

On another note, listening to Fox News rebroadcast the Tiger Woods circus/apology, he cites his stray from BuddhismPublic Image Standards Necessary To Maintain Product Sponsorships to explain his recent failings. He’s going to regain his center now and return to BuddhismPublic Image Standards Necessary To Maintain Product Sponsorships.

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 1:12 AM

Couldn’t help myself…

darii on February 20, 2010 at 1:20 AM

I don’t take issue with Liz Cheney being Gay. I do take issue if Liz Cheney pushes the gay agenda.

Gay Republican groups inherently push their agenda by their very nature. How about just Republican groups instead?

scotash on February 20, 2010 at 1:19 AM

Liz Cheney’s not gay. You’re thinking of her sister Mary Cheney.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 1:22 AM

hicsuget on February 20, 2010 at 1:12 AM

IIRC Some states go even further and call anything other than vaginal intercourse as sodomy and thus punishable as crime. I know the Military does for sure.

Funny, of all the Sins Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of Anal Sex is the one most recognized.

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 1:23 AM

2Brave2Bscared on February 20, 2010 at 1:09 AM
2Brave2Bscared on February 20, 2010 at 1:10 AM

Maybe added for double emphasis, but wasn’t Groundhogs Day two weeks ago.

disillusioned on February 20, 2010 at 1:24 AM

I don’t take issue with Liz Cheney being Gay. I do take issue if Liz Cheney pushes the gay agenda.

scotash on February 20, 2010 at 1:19 AM

It’s her sister who is the perv. Liz is normal.

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 1:24 AM

I don’t take issue with Liz Cheney being Gay. I do take issue if Liz Cheney pushes the gay agenda.

Gay Republican groups inherently push their agenda by their very nature. How about just Republican groups instead?

scotash on February 20, 2010 at 1:19 AM

Liz Cheney is married to a man and has 5 kids, her younger sister Mary Cheney is gay.

redridinghood on February 20, 2010 at 1:25 AM

Ugh, filter monster got me. Lets try this again.

hicsuget on February 20, 2010 at 1:12 AM

Some states go even further and define Sodomy as anything other than proper intercourse between man and a woman. I know the Military does.

Funny of all the Sins Sodom and Gomorrah committed, sodomy is the most easily recognized.

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 1:26 AM

Sorry, I think I understand what you meant. You misunderstood my comment. It’s the “Baker” thing. I was not refering to the actual “bread” as sustenance, I was refering to the property itself sustaining the lives of the baker’s family as this is the method by which they provide for themselves.

It is not the law valuing property more than life. It is the law valuing the life of the property owner, more than the thief.

That’s all.

I think you like to embellish the facts.

Saltysam on February 20, 2010 at 1:11 AM

True, the Baker’s property sustains him an his family. Morality and law often conflict. If a starving child’s father steals bread to feed the child, the Baker is harmed, of course. But if the child’s life was at its end without that loaf of bread, is it immoral for the father to steal to save the child’s life. What if that one theft did not significantly harm the Baker?

The law would say the father thief broke the law and should be punished. It’s a classic dilemma–I recall it from literature (Les Miserables), darii cites Aquinas.

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 1:26 AM

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 1:24 AM

I think that’s right. The one who publicly supports her dad is not the wayward one. I might have mixed up the names.

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 1:26 AM

Either reformed OR dismantled, eh? So reforming it would be an acceptable option to you… Just as I thought.

Yes, smaller is better. If the alternatives are as big as it currently is, or smaller, I’ll take smaller. If you’re of the infantile mindset that refuses any piece of the pie if you can’t have the whole pie, then that’s your problem.

In other words, I was completely right about you.

No, and so far you’ve shown yourself to be likely right about little.

No, I’ve listened. I just don’t believe you.

2Brave2Bscared on February 20, 2010 at 1:06 AM

That’s nice. You don’t believe what’s true. I imagine that happens to you a lot.

MadisonConservative on February 20, 2010 at 1:27 AM

It’s her sister who is the perv. Liz is normal.

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 1:24 AM

You demented creep.

MadisonConservative on February 20, 2010 at 1:28 AM

Point out to me, outside of this thread (where i freely admit i’ve dispensed with the niceties), that I’ve resorted to a personal attack on the person im arguing with, as opposed to attacking their argument or logic first.

ernesto on February 19, 2010 at 10:05 PM

ernesto, there’s no need to go outside this thread. My observation on your sh’t slinging skills was based solely on this thread. As you freely admit, in this thread you had to take the gloves off, no more Mr. Nice Guy! Again, it was funny listening to you dispense with the niceties. Now, I will freely admit that I have no knowledge of you resorting to world class sh!t slinging in any other threads. You have good debating skills-why not stick to them?

Gang-of-One on February 20, 2010 at 1:29 AM

Perhaps. Not sure what you’re taking as definitions of conservative here…(I’m assuming small government and strict adherence to the principles of federalism is “old” conservatism).

darii on February 20, 2010 at 1:14 AM

darii: This might help!!:)

http://www.sussexcountygop.com/gopvalues.htm

canopfor on February 20, 2010 at 1:29 AM

Mary Cheney by all accounts is a normal person. Conservative, intelligent and well of. Also, she and her partner are raising a Kid and I’d bet the gold in Fort Knox that their kid will grow up perfectly normal and probably devoutly although not doctrinaire Conservative.

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 1:30 AM

MadisonConservative on February 20, 2010 at 1:28 AM

Thank You!! (sorry, but it needed to be said and for the record Mary Cheney ‘publicly’ helped run Mr. Cheney’s reelection campaign).

Hades69 on February 20, 2010 at 1:30 AM

Couldn’t help myself…

darii on February 20, 2010 at 1:20 AM

Heh. It was ridiculous.

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 1:31 AM

It’s her sister who is the perv. Liz is normal.

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 1:24 AM

platypus: I do hope you don’t bump into Liz,or
gawd forbid,Dick Cheney!

canopfor on February 20, 2010 at 1:33 AM

Perhaps. Not sure what you’re taking as definitions of conservative here…(I’m assuming small government and strict adherence to the principles of federalism is “old” conservatism).

darii on February 20, 2010 at 1:14 AM

I need to go to bed, but I will say this: True conservatism is NOT the belief in “individual freedom above all else” as I saw someone at Hot Air state earlier last night. If that’s part of either your or Madison’s definition of conservatism than I regret to inform both of you of your liberalism.

Liberals believe in the radical autonomy of the individual, not conservatives.

2Brave2Bscared on February 20, 2010 at 1:33 AM

Assuming that there is a gay gender, their votes amount to a teacup versus a swimming pool. Because their votes are numerically insignificant, they are not entitled to any special attention.

But of course attention is all they want. And the CPAC political idiots provide them with it.

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 1:14 AM

I didn’t say anything about any “gay gender”. And every thousand votes, every hundred votes counts.

Another 50 votes, for example, would have put Republican Dino Rossi into the governor’s chair instead of Christine Gregoire, a few years back in the state of Washington. Those “numerically insignificant” votes are in fact most welcome in close elections.

If you resent gays and the strictly junior-level problem of their political lobby, bully for you. But I for one would rather see more and more gays convert to fiscal conservatives, and vote that way, in the first place. Then work on their damn lobby afterward.

Transforming the way taxpayers’ money is wasted by America’s legislators is this country’s chief existential problem by far. The gay lobby nuisance is comparatively a minor-league distraction and cannot hold a candle to the urgent and currently pressing need to reverse America’s catastrophic fiscal course.

Edouard on February 20, 2010 at 1:34 AM

Liberals believe in the radical autonomy of the individual, not conservatives.

2Brave2Bscared on February 20, 2010 at 1:33 AM

2Brave2Bscared: I’m off as well,sweet dreams 2B2BScared!:)

canopfor on February 20, 2010 at 1:36 AM

2Brave2Bscared on February 20, 2010 at 1:33 AM

Sounds more akin to libertarianism to me…and good night. :)

darii on February 20, 2010 at 1:38 AM

I need to go to bed, but I will say this: True conservatism is NOT the belief in “individual freedom above all else” as I saw someone at Hot Air state earlier last night. If that’s part of either your or Madison’s definition of conservatism than I regret to inform both of you of your liberalism.

Liberals believe in the radical autonomy of the individual, not conservatives.

2Brave2Bscared on February 20, 2010 at 1:33 AM

Classical liberals, yes. Your page link seems to oddly define a left liberal and right liberal. Supposedly I am both, I guess, since I believe in social and economic liberalism (again, classical sense, limited government in both).

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 1:38 AM

OH MY! I just now popped into this thread and given the subject matter and the fact that its closing in on a 1000 comments, I’m guessing I more than likely just walked into a mine-feild.

Before I go off half cocked and say something stupid. I’m gonna scroll back up and get a feel for the terrain before I take another step. I’ll join y’all shortly.

Archimedes on February 20, 2010 at 1:41 AM

I’ve known a few homosexuals that have confessed that life would have been a lot better & easier had they been born heterosexual.

redridinghood on February 20, 2010 at 1:20 AM

I’ve known a few homosexuals that have confessed that they would probably not have become homosexual had life been different.

Whatever. That doesn’t prove anything.

Like I said before, I have not walked in their shoes. Only God knows.

redridinghood on February 20, 2010 at 1:20 AM

Well, in our discussion, the main thing you’ve said before was that I must believe, for no other apparent reason than you do.

I don’t.

*shrugs shoulders*

Saltysam on February 20, 2010 at 1:41 AM

Archimedes on February 20, 2010 at 1:41 AM

We’ve actually had some very reasoned, fruitful tangents.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 1:42 AM

Homosexuals are clearly psychologically and sexually inferior to heterosexuals.

.

ms on February 20, 2010 at 1:42 AM

MadisonLiberal on February 20, 2010 at 1:27 AM

My only hope is that my words have pricked your conscience enough to make you realize that you aren’t nearly as small government as you claim, and, upon coming to this realization about yourself, you move away from your just-smaller-than-Democrats view of role of government and become more principled in your self-proclaimed conservatism.

Good night.

p.s. Just for fun, here’s a harder one for you: How do you feel about the billions of dollars that have been and are being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan in effort to “democratize” these nations? If you are in favor of this, mind telling me where in our Constitution this authority is given to the government? Thanks.

2Brave2Bscared on February 20, 2010 at 1:42 AM

Homosexuals are clearly psychologically and sexually inferior to heterosexuals.

.

ms on February 20, 2010 at 1:42 AM

And this adds to the discussion how?

darii on February 20, 2010 at 1:42 AM

Since they are not capable of being on a higher level psychologically and sexually ….. then what is the point of discussing something with them that they cannot comprehend.

ms on February 20, 2010 at 1:46 AM

I’ve known a few homosexuals that have confessed that life would have been a lot better & easier had they been born heterosexual. Like I said before, I have not walked in their shoes. Only God knows.

redridinghood on February 20, 2010 at 1:20 AM

Quick question, do you believe that man is created in God’s image?

disillusioned on February 20, 2010 at 1:47 AM

Religion is funny that way

ernesto on February 20, 2010 at 12:03 AM

True that.

Gang-of-One on February 20, 2010 at 1:47 AM

Greenroomed it.

Repurblican on February 20, 2010 at 1:48 AM

disillusioned on February 20, 2010 at 1:47 AM

Unless there’s a Mrs. God- what does that prove?

Hades69 on February 20, 2010 at 1:48 AM

It still is, even between a man and his wife, in Maryland and Virginia (I doubt they’re the only states where that is the case; they’re just the only states I’ve happened to have lived in). Fortunately they don’t enforce it. The Founders didn’t get everything right though; the Enlightenment had not completely percolated through society (cf. slavery, human).

hicsuget on February 20, 2010 at 1:12 AM

No, the Supreme Court voided those laws everywhere less than a decade ago.

My point in bringing it up, is that the Founders were aware of homosexuality and opposed it; in 2010 you cannot therefore attack opponents of homosexual privileges as being out of step with the Founders. Just as with emancipation, something CHANGED.

Chris_Balsz on February 20, 2010 at 1:49 AM

Judge not lest you be judged.”

redridinghood on February 19, 2010 at 11:08 PM
Riiiiiiight.

Don’t you dare judge rape to be wrong, lest you be judged! And don’t be so quick to judge pedophilia is wrong, lest you be judged! And don’t even think about passing judgment on murder, or else it’ll be judgment time on your ass!

darii on February 19, 2010 at 11:35 PM

These are all crimes and are punishable through our justice system.

Should Gays and Lesbians be banned from all Conservative movements?

redridinghood on February 20, 2010 at 1:49 AM

What if that one theft did not significantly harm the Baker?

BryanS on February 20, 2010 at 1:26 AM

If the message is, theft is okay as long as it does not significantly harm the victim, you’ve just made the law subjective and arbitrary, which is not law. At least in the Western sense.

Who judges significant? Now the thief has to make the call before the crime is committed…

…chaos.

Allowing the theft of what sustains others, in order to sustain the thief, is chaos.

I guess, the first thing I would ask the thief, if I were the judge is…

…”since the baker obviously would not be significantly harmed, did you try asking first”?

Saltysam on February 20, 2010 at 1:50 AM

ms on February 20, 2010 at 1:46 AM

Complete garbage is the only thing I can think of for this comment.

disillusioned on February 20, 2010 at 1:52 AM

Thank You!! (sorry, but it needed to be said and for the record Mary Cheney ‘publicly’ helped run Mr. Cheney’s reelection campaign).

Hades69 on February 20, 2010 at 1:30 AM

It really does show how f**king chickens**t some of these social “conservatives” are when their goddamned sexual hangup wanders in their direction…no problem insulting the family of one of the movement’s leading figures.

Revolting jerks.

MadisonConservative on February 20, 2010 at 1:53 AM

It really does show how f**king chickens**t some of these social “conservatives” are when their goddamned sexual hangup wanders in their direction…no problem insulting the family of one of the movement’s leading figures.

Revolting jerks.

MadisonConservative on February 20, 2010 at 1:53 AM

Agreed. Disagreement or disapproval doesn’t justify being an a–hole.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 1:55 AM

The gay lobby nuisance is comparatively a minor-league distraction and cannot hold a candle to the urgent and currently pressing need to reverse America’s catastrophic fiscal course.

Edouard on February 20, 2010 at 1:34 AM

If they were just a nuisance, I’d go with your sentiments. But they are far more than a nuisance. They are seeking to reorder and restructure the traditional values to remove the basis for individual moral opposition to perversion.

Make no mistake – they look down on everything normal which is why they make sure that everybody knows what they do in the bedroom that they insist everyone stay out of.

They have no need of protection and they do not deserve special favors. The fact that they demand/solicit these things shows that they are both depraved AND deceitful.

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 1:58 AM

Should Gays and Lesbians be banned from all Conservative movements?

redridinghood on February 20, 2010 at 1:49 AM

If anything, Conservatives should reach out to Lesb!ans, Gays and Bisexuals. Specifically Gays and Bi-men, if they subscribed to the SoCon Virtue of Moderation or Restraint, their STD infection rates IMO would far closer to Heterosexual rates and Society would benefit as a whole from it.

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM

If you aren’t a heterosexual married couple, abstain.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 2:00 AM

Can you elaborate on these hypothetical laws? I’m curious about what your thoughts might be here, beyond a preconceived loony tune characterization.

disillusioned on February 20, 2010 at 1:04 AM

Try “it is a felony for a person who knows that they are HIV positive to have sex with another person without informing them of their HIV status”

Or “it is a felony for a person who knows that they are HIV positive to have unprotected sex with another person whose status is unknown or who is HIV negative”

Or “it is a felony for a person who knows they are HIV positive to give blood, other than for autodonation”

Are those sufficient? Most people are law-abiding in the above regards, but I can think of a few groups who could give a rats behind….

unclesmrgol on February 20, 2010 at 2:00 AM

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10 11 12 14