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 11 12 13 14

Where I will go, entropent, is to vote for individual candidates of any party who support traditional family values and strong national defense, and who are not anti-Semitic cranks (Ron Paul need not apply. Acutally, Ron Paul needs to die in a fire.)

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 9:09 AM

Having sex with children, which is illegal, is not comparable to having sex between adults, which is legal.

Perhaps you missed my point- By her way of thinking feelings trumped logic and reasoning every time to which I pointed out an example why they do not.

This isn’t an argument about sex with adults vs sex with children, which you seemed to latched onto for some reason.

Feelings vs reasoning.

In the example I tossed at her she was speechless because so she had no answer, I have never seen another human being actually “lock up” like a computer.

Her way of thinking conflicted so badly with her role a mother she could not provide an answer.

gdonovan on February 20, 2010 at 9:15 AM

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 9:09 AM

I think we need to look at their positions and consider what policies they are likely to affect, and what ends up being unlikable but irrelevant. I don’t like anti-Semitism, either, and I can certainly understand Jews finding it beyond the pale, but what anti-Semitic policies are likely to get floated and/or supported by Ron Paul? This may sound too compromising to some, but I’d prefer have someone like Ron Paul to, say, Olympia Snowe’s.

DrMagnolias on February 20, 2010 at 9:17 AM

DrMagnolias on February 20, 2010 at 9:17 AM

Ahhh, typos. I hope you understand what I meant.

DrMagnolias on February 20, 2010 at 9:19 AM

Dr. M. I tend to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism, and Dr. Paul’s desire to stop all foreign aid has always struck me as a cover up for a covert hatred of Israel and the Jews. In other words, he’s a little more cunning than Pat Buchanan, but not as smart as he thinks he is. I wouldn’t vote for Sen. Snowe, either, FWIW.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 9:23 AM

As a Messianic, it is my opinion, the government should get out of the marriage business, why is it the governments responsibility to to sanction marriage? I agree with some here who write homosexuality is a sin but it is our roles as followers of Yahshua to point it out not pass laws against it. Yahshua gave us personal responsibility to make our own choices. The “church” should be the arbitrator of who is to marry. Again, each “church” has the responsibility to make that call.

Grayzel on February 20, 2010 at 9:25 AM

The problem I have with that, Grayzel, is my tax dollars paying for any benefits they receive from federal or local government jobs, just like I don’t want my tax dollars paying for abortion.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 9:29 AM

which you seemed to latched onto for some reason.

I responded to your copying my quote. My post had zero to do with “her” of any type.

I should have read your mind, apparently. :)

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 9:31 AM

(Ron Paul need not apply. Acutally, Ron Paul needs to die in a fire.)

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 9:09 AM

Not being a Paulbot, I was with you on the first part of your sentence. Wanting him to die a fiery death is really beyond the pale, Ed.

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 9:34 AM

Thank you for your civility, thuja. But at the risk of being uncouth myself, I don’t think the Founding Fathers had a delegation at the first Constitutional Convention that included practitioners of buttsecks to make sure that the vast and oppressed buttsecks peoples had their rights recognized.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 9:07 AM

They did have agreement that women shouldn’t vote and that states could legally have slave codes. Public attitudes toward homosexuals have changed significantly in the past 40 years, the law is beginning to reflect that cultural change.

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 9:35 AM

The problem I have with that, Grayzel, is my tax dollars paying for any benefits they receive from federal or local government jobs, just like I don’t want my tax dollars paying for abortion.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 9:29 AM

You mean, you want no federal dollars to support AIDS efforts? *puzzled*

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 9:38 AM

Beyond your pale, entropent? Perhaps. What is and always will be beyond mine is the fact that, post-Holocaust, there are still cranks and psychos who deny that said event ever happened and are doing everything they can to distort the truth because they want to see Jews die in a fire AGAIN.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 9:39 AM

As a Messianic, it is my opinion, the government should get out of the marriage business, why is it the governments responsibility to to sanction marriage?

Because it still very much protects the children born?

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 9:39 AM

“is my tax dollars paying for any benefits they receive from federal or local government jobs,” I understand your statement. There is an easy answer. Get government out of marriage altogether. You think a homosexual should not work for the government? Why? If you mean tax benefits from marriage, there should not be any. You look at the government the same way liberals do in this respect. Use it to control human behavior. What is the difference between this and say, controlling what we eat, what we drive or what insurance we have? Yahshua didn’t go around attempting to force the Roman government to enact Yahweh’s laws, no he attempts to change the individual.

Grayzel on February 20, 2010 at 9:39 AM

Here’s my question. Why was this anti-guy guy even on a panel?

That caused the debate.

I don’t quite get it.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 9:40 AM

Good point dedalus, and the FFs were wrong about that. But here’s the disconnect: Black people are born black, and women are born women. That’s fact. It’s science. It’s neither that homosexuals are born homosexual, unless by science one is talking about something that resembles AGW.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 9:41 AM

“Because it still very much protects the children born?” Are you saying the governments role is to protect children being born? I would have to say they are failing. What does government sanction of marriage really have to do with children being born? Could not the “church” do the same thing? Why look to government to force your views on other people?

Grayzel on February 20, 2010 at 9:44 AM

The difference, Grayzel, is that marriage benefits benefit those who create children, who, in turn, pay the taxes that support national defense, Social Security, and so on. One of the reasons Europe is such a mess is that without taxpayers, its lavish welfare systems (not that I’m saying we need one of those) are unsupportable, and national defense all but impossible. Apart from some Frankenstein’s lab project homosexual couples do not reproduce because they cannot.

AnninCA, AIDS is not evil, it’s a disease. Jeez, I’m not a theologian or a doctor, but at least I can tell the difference on that score.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 9:53 AM

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 9:39 AM

*sigh* I can’t believe I am defending this crank, but;
Ron Paul is not a Holocaust denier, and he does not want to see Jews die in a fire again. He is anti-Israel, and many people equate that with anti-Semitism, not altogether unreasonably.

That doesn’t excuse you for wishing a horrible death on him.

“But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken.”

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 9:54 AM

“Because it still very much protects the children born?” Are you saying the governments role is to protect children being born? I would have to say they are failing. What does government sanction of marriage really have to do with children being born? Could not the “church” do the same thing? Why look to government to force your views on other people?

Grayzel on February 20, 2010 at 9:44 AM

The current government institution of marriage is primarily an instrument of distributing responsibilities for the biological children born in it. We could really sidestep the whole issue if the law were exactly to the point on that, rather than scooping up an entire religious institution with it.
Additionally, given the public importance of birth rate and child rearing, it is not out of the question for the state and local level governments to provide mated pairs with benefits and incentives.
And, one parting shot: there is nothing keeping those who prefer homosexual activity from engaging in a heterosexual pairing for the purpose of having children. The problem has always been the attempt to model homosexual relationships after and as a substitute for heterosexual ones. Those with such habits should really learn to think outside of that box.

Count to 10 on February 20, 2010 at 9:59 AM

I admit to asserting that interracial marriage seems to often lead to personality disorders that have resulted (in the public examples I cited) in immoral and/or criminal behavior.
Products of such marriages seem to have mild-to-severe identity problems.

Jenfidel on February 19, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Calm down.
I didn’t say anything about “interracial children.”
Jenfidel on February 20, 2010 at 4:04 AM

Yes, you did.

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 4:26 AM

Thanks for doing this so I didn’t have to. :)

Diane on February 20, 2010 at 10:02 AM

The difference, Grayzel, is that marriage benefits benefit those who create children, who, in turn, pay the taxes that support national defense, Social Security, and so on.

So in your opinion, men and women would not get together and have children if the government didn’t give them something to do it? Kind of like the government giving you say, a big down payment or tax credit to buy a car? Your line of thought is progressive. You are for government controlling people through taxes and rewards for what the government deems as correct behavior?

Grayzel on February 20, 2010 at 10:02 AM

If this thread has been indicative of anything, it is that there is so much pure hatred and smug arrogance from so many of the posters here that this thread (I’ve read every comment) could easily have come from Daily Kos.

Anyone who has read this thread through knows exactly what and who I am talking about.

My take on the Ryan Sorba thing: He did come across quite cocky. However, the hecklers were booing him before he was in front of the podium. Perhaps many of us would go into “fight or flight” mode when exposed to the same situation.

I have no problem with gay people. I do, however, have a problem with gay activists. Many of us accept your lifestyle as long as you stop trying to ram it down our collective throats. Live and let live, but stop trying to make people with strong religious beliefs buy into what your sexual preferences are 100%. It is not normal, yet. This is the ultimate result of years of the liberal and media bombardment of all things gay: it is becoming accepted as normal.

And to all of my Hot Air friends who continue to be use smugness and snark in your responses to people who are trying to be respectful in commenting: many people are reading here and you all mostly come across very immature and asinine.

carbon_footprint on February 20, 2010 at 10:03 AM

Sorba was booed by a small cadre of 20 or 30 homosexual ideologues and a few of their fellow travelers.

There was little sympathy for the GOProud group of ideologues beyond their own numbers in that ballroom.

The in your face efforts of homosexual activists will not intimidate mainstream conservatives, who embrace the social issues.

wraithby on February 20, 2010 at 10:04 AM

“Good point dedalus, and the FFs were wrong about that. But here’s the disconnect: Black people are born black, and women are born women. That’s fact. It’s science. It’s neither that homosexuals are born homosexual, unless by science one is talking about something that resembles AGW. – Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 9:41 AM”

Back in 1978 Prop 6 if passed would have purged the public schools in California all gays, lesbians and their supporters. Ronald Reagan was the key figure who made the landslide against Prop 6 a reality. In an editorial that he wrote at the time, he recognized that homosexuality is not something that you catch like a cold. It is something that is set in stone very, very early in your life.

SC.Charlie on February 20, 2010 at 10:07 AM

And I tell thee, entropent, that cowards and weaklings and covetuous people who are full of butt-hurt or are looking to satisfy whatever desires their wills have surrendered to use the words of Jesus the way you do.

You and your kind remind me of the Japanese wrestler Muhammad Ali fought years ago. Ali came out with fists up, while the wrestler flopped on his back and tried to trip Ali with his feet. You’re defenseless, so you’re flopping on your back to keep from taking a punch.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 10:09 AM

No argument against the “set early in life” piece, SC.Charlie. But that’s still not genetics. And, no, I am most definitely not in favor of firing homosexuals.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 10:12 AM

Sorba was booed by a small cadre of 20 or 30 homosexual ideologues and a few of their fellow travelers.

Hardly. They guy was booed off the stage by the entire crowd.

Isn’t CPAC predominantly “young?”

Young Republicans are just not that into homophobia, obviously.

Good for them.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 10:12 AM

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Judging from the vitriol of your response, I think not. Rather, I think I scored a direct hit.

And who, exactly, are “my kind?”

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 10:13 AM

Grayzel, that may be progressive, and if it is, so be it. But if that’s what it takes to keep us from becoming extinct, then it strikes me as the much lesser of two evils.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 10:14 AM

The in your face efforts of homosexual activists will not intimidate mainstream conservatives, who embrace the social issues.

wraithby on February 20, 2010 at 10:04 AM

Over the past 50 years American voters have reached a point where over 60% favor civil unions and over 40% favor gay marriage. That is from a starting point close to 0% in the 1960′s.

With the generational change happening every election, don’t the numbers work against your position? It seems doubtful that someone like this guy in the video is persuading anyone.

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 10:14 AM

Are you saying the governments role is to protect children being born? I would have to say they are failing. What does government sanction of marriage really have to do with children being born? Could not the “church” do the same thing? Why look to government to force your views on other people?

Grayzel on February 20, 2010 at 9:44 AM

This country is based on freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion.

If there’s one conservative idea that is the glue, that’s it.

My point is simple. Children who are born as a result of a partnership, which may or may not last through their childhood, deserve a fair shake. That seems to me to be what marriage contracts are about. Fairness to those who really don’t have anything to do with the partnership.

If we go back to some system where the primary breadwinner is allowed to simply give the “out” family a stipend, based on his “Church-driven” conscience, well…….come on.

We all surely know what the result would be, except for a very small percentage of breadwinners who truly have developed a higher conscience.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 10:17 AM

I guess the problem here is, I want my values enforced by government whether you are a liberal or a conservative. As a libertarian I say, take the national government out of all such things. Bring our country back to the Constitution. To get to a smaller national government we need to take it out of all social issues and let the States and local government decide these thing. That is how the Constitution is set up. I think abortion, gay rights and a plethora of other issues are for the states to decide. That way, if you don’t like what is going on in your state you can move to one that fits your religious beliefs.

Grayzel on February 20, 2010 at 10:17 AM

I thought that was clear, entropent, but if I need to say so, your kind is the cowardly, weak, and covetuous kind.

And if you’re o.k. with using the words of Jesus to support those who want to be affirmed in their gay okayness when Jesus Himself would have never done any such thing, then just remember that the day of judgement awaits you, too.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 10:17 AM

I thought that was clear, entropent, but if I need to say so, your kind is the cowardly, weak, and covetuous kind.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 10:17 AM

Wow. You’re flailing. Got you below the water line, and you’re sinking fast.

I thought when you referred to my “kind” you were intimating that I was gay.

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 10:22 AM

Grayzel, that may be progressive, and if it is, so be it. But if that’s what it takes to keep us from becoming extinct, then it strikes me as the much lesser of two evils. Ed Snyder
Then follow your churches teachings- be fruitful and multiply.

My point is simple. Children who are born as a result of a partnership, which may or may not last through their childhood, deserve a fair shake. That seems to me to be what marriage contracts are about. Fairness to those who really don’t have anything to do with the partnership. AnninCA

You still have not stated why the government, under the Constitution, needs to have a role. What is a fair shake?

Grayzel on February 20, 2010 at 10:23 AM

Good point dedalus, and the FFs were wrong about that. But here’s the disconnect: Black people are born black, and women are born women. That’s fact. It’s science. It’s neither that homosexuals are born homosexual, unless by science one is talking about something that resembles AGW.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Thanks for the reply, Ed. The Constitution doesn’t confer rights with a reference to biology. If it did, the document would be subject to constant change. Within the Constitution the first right it recognizes, religion, has no biological basis.

Courts so far have found homosexuality to be sufficiently “immutable” that they look closely at questions involving discrimination.

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 10:29 AM

No, entropent, it is the Republican Party and America that are sinking. And since you had to selectively quote me to get in a nyah-nyah, it sounds to me like you’re the one who needs to don a lifejacket. Then again, you’re o.k. with taking Jesus’ words out of context to support sexual sin, so it’s not like anyone should expect anything like honest debate from you.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Poke.

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 10:32 AM

In an editorial that he wrote at the time, he recognized that homosexuality is not something that you catch like a cold. It is something that is set in stone very, very early in your life.

SC.Charlie on February 20, 2010 at 10:07 AM

It is not “set early in life”. It is a learned behavior, a habit. You don’t “catch it”, you emulate it, like you emulate smoking or any other habit forming behavior. Parents have every right to prevent their children from being exposed to it. Now, you probably don’t want to kick all teachers that practice the homosexual lifestyle out of school any more than you want to kick all of the teachers that smoke out, but it would be reasonable to take steps to keep the behaviors from being promoted.

Count to 10 on February 20, 2010 at 10:34 AM

with taking Jesus’ words out of context to support sexual sin, Ed Snyder

With your logic then we should have government pass laws on adultery or what G-d you should worship or if you can eat a pig. After all those are sins also.

Grayzel on February 20, 2010 at 10:37 AM

Well, Shalom all. It has been fun sparing with progressive Republicans.

Grayzel on February 20, 2010 at 10:41 AM

The Ryan Sorba situation points to a growing moral bankruptcy within me “conservatives” as they believe that we can be a free nation without being a moral one. It doesn’t work, and the idea that we’re going to have a group come in based on their sexual practices is beyond me.

What’s next? A group of S&M conservatives?

adamsweb on February 20, 2010 at 10:43 AM

Then again, you’re o.k. with taking Jesus’ words out of context to support sexual sin
Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Um, no. No I’m not taking Jesus’s words out of context to support sexual sin.

That doesn’t excuse you for wishing a horrible death on him.

“But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken.”

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 9:54 AM

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 10:44 AM

More good points, dedalus. Here’s mine, stated more clearly: The Constitution originally withheld rights from two groups of people based on biology. What I’m arguing against here (and I didn’t mean to make the mistake of reading my past experiences into what you were saying) is that the analogy some make between the way women and blacks were treated pre-20th century and the way homosexuals are treated now is inapt. It is so because women and blacks were explicitly denied rights in the Constitution. Neither the Constitution nor any of its amendments have denied a homosexual the right to vote or deemed him to be 3/5 of a person.

Your religion analogy is powerful, and gives me food for thought. I’m tempted to reply that there was a proximate historical context (Europe’s religious wars) that had a lot to do with making that right paramount in the minds of the FFs, but also perhaps that religion is foundational to individuals and society in a way that sexuality is not, and that to confuse the two may lead down a path of relativism and an unplesant destination at its end.

But I don’t think that answers your argument. You have my respect.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 10:46 AM

I’ll never understand why people insist that their moral viewpoint be “the” only one.

Whatever.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 10:49 AM

“Poke”?

Poke?

O.K. I take back what I said earlier. You’re gay after all.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 10:49 AM

My bad, entropent. People who, for the sake of not being judgemental, assent to or assist with evil, are guilty of that evil. Better Ron Paul die in a fire than another 6M Jews. And when I see Jesus, I’ll tell Him that to His face.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 10:52 AM

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 10:46 AM

Ed, dontcha know that as Conservatives “social issues” are a losing issue for us?

Unless of course the “social issues” becomes pushing the gay agenda, well then we’re all about the “social issues.”

/

Branch Rickey on February 20, 2010 at 10:52 AM

Having sex with children, which is illegal, is not comparable to having sex between adults, which is legal.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 8:52 AM

For certain groups, it certainly is. And when other groups involving children try to restrict gay male access to teenaged boys, the result is a cry of “homophobia”. Look at the outcry surrounding the Boy Scouts, for example.

As a juvenile, I survived two such attempts by different gay males (both strangers), so I’m acutely aware of the issue.

To better understand, here are some interesting resources:
Harry Hay, founder of Mattucine and supporter of NAMBLA.
Note that Harry Hays himself was the junior partner in a pedophilia (ephibophilia) incident at the age of 14; his sexual partner was 24. Harry’s lionization by the gay community upon his death illustrates the connection of that community with pedophilia.
NAMBLA:

In December 1977, police raided a house in the Boston suburb of Revere. Twenty-four men were arrested and indicted on over 100 felony counts of the statutory rape of boys aged eight to fifteen. Suffolk County District Attorney Garrett Byrne found that the men used drugs and video games to lure the boys into a house, where they photographed them as they engaged in sexual activity. The men were members of a “sex ring”, and said that the arrest was only “the tip of the iceberg.”[8] The arrests sparked intense media coverage, and local newspapers published the photographs and personal information of the accused men.

Staff members of the homosexual newspaper Fag Rag believed the raid was politically motivated. They and others in Boston’s gay community saw Byrne’s round-up as an anti-gay witch-hunt. On December 9 they organized the Boston-Boise Committee, a name intended as a reference to a similar situation that unfolded in Boise, Idaho in the 1950s. The group sponsored rallies, provided funds for the defendants, and tried to educate the public about the case by passing out fliers. It would also later produce NAMBLA.

District Attorney Garrett Byrne was defeated in his re-election bid. The new DA said that no man should fear prison for having sex with a teenager unless coercion was involved. All charges were dropped. The few who had already pled or been found guilty received only probation.[11]

No man should fear prison for having sex with a teenager. Hmm. Closet member?
Catholic priests and pedophilia/ephebaphilia:

Homosexuals are three times as likely to be pedophiles as heterosexual men. Although exclusive pedophilia (adult attraction to prepubescent children) is an extreme and rare phenomenon, one third of homosexual men are attracted to teenage boys (Jenkins, Priests and Pedophilia). The seduction of teenage boys by homosexual men is a well-documented phenomenon. This form of deviant behavior is the most common type of clerical abuse and is directly connected to homosexual behavior.

And, of course, there’s Fistgate.

unclesmrgol on February 20, 2010 at 10:52 AM

I’ll never understand why people insist that their moral viewpoint be “the” only one.

Whatever.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 10:49 AM

Insisting upon one’s own moral standard is entirely understandable. The real question, though, is this:

Why must someone buy into your moral code to be considered a proper “conservative”? The constitution is what matters here, not social practices. We are not Americans, nor do we have a constitution, solely for the purpose of perpetuating a specific social construct. SoCons would prefer our constitution to afford their social mores protected status, in direct conflict with the ideal of personal liberty.

ernesto on February 20, 2010 at 10:53 AM

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 10:49 AM

Heh. No, actually I’m a grandmother. But I knew I could get you to say it if I poked you.

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 10:53 AM

It’s been fun. Off to bake some cookies…

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 10:57 AM

And when winning becomes everything BR, then everything else is expendible. Good stuff.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 11:11 AM

It is not “set early in life”. It is a learned behavior, a habit. – Count to 10 on February 20, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Not according to the experts and my personal experience. But, of course you disagree.

SC.Charlie on February 20, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Barack Obama is not so awful that a majority of the Right will agree to gay marriage, an end to the war on drugs, an end to protection of faith-based values by government, and accept a lassez-faire attitude towards abortion, just to elect the Party of Whatever.

A lot has been said about “well Cheney has flipped, Ted Olsen has flipped, Gingrich has flipped, Ronald Reagan once saw it our way” so therefore, the Movement has gone Left and it’s asinine, silly, and ridiculous– I mean, open to ridicule– for any relics who think the GOP is their own club to hold fast.

But the party is really not about the Elite. If it were McCain would have got all the votes George Bush got in 2004.

The word “conservative” is becoming meaningless because it is becoming synonymous with “me” — “I’m a Me; your values prove you’re not a real Me and all real Mes should shun you”

I look at the Reagan Agenda of a capable defense, encouraging a religious basis for patriotism, stronger social fabric of personal achievement and responsibility, diminished federal responsibility for quality of life issues, denigration of handouts, rebuttal of identity politics — and you see that at an event like CPAC, a Reaganite would be considered a kook, unAmerican, a bigot, a warmonger, and a surefire loser in 44 states.

No real Me would stand it.

Chris_Balsz on February 20, 2010 at 11:31 AM

When you look at what results from interracial marriages like the Precedent, Tiger Woods and the murder of Nicole by O.J. Simpson, I have to wonder if those “natural law” advocates didn’t have a point.

Jenfidel on February 19, 2010 at 7:39 PM

You do realize we’re all a little mixed now, right? Or are you just concerned with outward mixing? Am I prone to personality disorder because I’m Native American, British and a bit of German tossed in there? Or is it just that outward “blackness” you have a problem with?

re natural law: you are distinguishing between Natural Law related to political philosophy and natural law of antiquated “science” used by advocates of slavery and segregation? It matters. Sources would be helpful.

When rightly asked to clarify, you said:

I admit to asserting that interracial marriage seems to often lead to personality disorders that have resulted (in the public examples I cited) in immoral and/or criminal behavior.
Products of such marriages seem to have mild-to-severe identity problems.

Jenfidel on February 19, 2010 at 8:37 PM

(Pardon my reckless assumption earlier that “products” of said marriage indicated “children.” My mistake!) When asked for any real research done on this highly sensitive subject you seem to speak with such authority on, you said:

I said it was my opinion and that advocates of such theories “had a point.”
This is a far cry from saying that I support such thinking wholesale and/or that I based my views on any kind of formal research.

Jenfidel on February 20, 2010 at 3:35 AM

Then,

You don’t have to be a clinical psychologist to see the outcomes of certain behavior; all you have to do is read a newspaper.
Jenfidel on February 20, 2010 at 4:04 AM

You think certain theorists have a point, then track away from said theorists when asked to cite your sources. You gave three examples of adults behaving badly and used it to support a preexisting bias. Unless you can produce some other credible research (a link? anything?) your comments stink of racial bigotry. I take that pretty seriously.

Here’s what I’m going to do: I’ll just use your comments here to deduce that you’re a conflicted, self-righteous, obfuscating Church Lady-archetype with neither a relationship with true Christian doctrine or reality.

What, you don’t like that? I’m even citing my sources! We’ve only asked for the same courtesy.

Diane on February 20, 2010 at 11:34 AM

Jeff Fraze is Ron Paul’s leader of Young Americans for Liberty.

Fraze was the pro-gay marriage guy who was protesting in the crowd.

Spathi on February 20, 2010 at 11:34 AM

The crowd that booed the anti-gay marriage speaker was all Paul supporters since Paul was set to take the stage shortly there after.

Spathi on February 20, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 3:27 AM

First, in terms of morality in the GOP, don’t ever confuse abortion and gay rights. I’m as pro-gay marriage as they come and as pro-life as they come. In society, I’m starting to see many young conservatives, etc who are both pro-life and pro-gay equality.

But to your larger point, which I think was the GOP should not embrace these “deviants.” One, I would guess 40%+ of gay men are Republicans, from my experience at least and in the polls. Someone mentioned the Folsom Street fair above. I agree that thing is disgusting, as is many aspects of SF for that matter. But don’t confuse SF values with gay equality. Don’t we want to encourage, gay men especially, to get into more monogamous and healthy relationships. That seems to be the conservative thing to do.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on February 20, 2010 at 12:07 PM

Judging from reactions here…I think the 2012 Republican National Convention may have 4 live speakers, psychologically examined like Mercury astronauts before being cleared to recite a script, and 100 taped and edited videos.

Chris_Balsz on February 20, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Jenfidel on February 19, 2010 at 7:06 PM

You’re the one who is deceived. I never mentioned gay marriage, did I? No. I support civil unions, but I see no reason to redefine marriage.

DADT is stupid – if the military doesn’t want gays to serve, then they should just be banned from serving. It’s just stupid that a person can serve for years, have a terrific record, and then be accused of being gay and being discharged from the military. Either ban gays outright or let them serve openly. My son who is in the AF could care less.

Sorry, I don’t believe in telling a young girl who has been raped that she must carry her rapist’s baby to term. That is just cruel, not mention just out right madness. It is is not fair to the baby, I know, but forcing a woman to carry the baby of the animal who raped her is not fair to the woman.

ladyingray on February 20, 2010 at 12:22 PM

I admit to asserting that interracial marriage seems to often lead to personality disorders that have resulted (in the public examples I cited) in immoral and/or criminal behavior.
Products of such marriages seem to have mild-to-severe identity problems.

Jenfidel on February 19, 2010 at 8:37 PM

More of your inane babble…

The best behaved kids on our block are biracial. They have the best manners too, not to mention that they all are so well-balanced that all five of them have joined the military.

Your bigotry really says a lot about you.

ladyingray on February 20, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Sorry, I don’t believe in telling a young girl who has been raped that she must carry her rapist’s baby to term. That is just cruel, not mention just out right madness. It is is not fair to the baby, I know, but forcing a woman to carry the baby of the animal who raped her is not fair to the woman.

ladyingray on February 20, 2010 at 12:22 PM

That’s emotional reasoning.

If that’s a baby, a human life, you’re killing it. That’s capital punishment for an innocent bystander. Little wiggle room there. You can penalize the rapist to the fullest extent of the law, support the woman in toward adoption, and respect human life by not advocating abortion.

Most women who report a violent rape immediately receive a d&c or morning after pill with the rape kit…this would be the only hypothetical I could consider. If the woman waits to report the rape for months, that baby is growing and deserves life. It’s a terrible situation, either way, but murder of innocent life isn’t the solution and could potentially harm the woman more in an already delicate psychological state.

Diane on February 20, 2010 at 12:53 PM

Our country is done for. Look at all the supporters of a truly despicable and disgusting behavior! What’s next CPAC support for partial birth abortion?

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Diane on February 20, 2010 at 12:53 PM

The morning after pill is rejected by the pro-life group. If life begins at conception, this is just as much a murder as an abortion of an 8-week baby. As is an IUD or a d&c.

And perhaps it is emotional reasoning, but then again, humans are emotional. My sister was drugged and raped by three men. Do you honestly think she would be harmed more by aborting that baby than carry it to term, if she had gotten pregnant? If so, then you are not as intelligent as you think you are. I pray you never have to experience something like that.

ladyingray on February 20, 2010 at 1:17 PM

This kind of stuff turns me off to the GOP. Is the party only for white, blonde, blue eyed, non-mormon, arian heterosexuals? Pretty small party then.

WyoMike on February 20, 2010 at 1:24 PM

This kind of stuff turns me off to the GOP. Is the party only for white, blonde, blue eyed, non-mormon, arian heterosexuals? Pretty small party then.

WyoMike on February 20, 2010 at 1:24 PM

Did you just come from Huffing-Paint Post?

Tilt your head sideways and shake out the BS. The conservative side has its restrictions, but that’s just veiled libtard slander.

Dark-Star on February 20, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Why must someone buy into your moral code to be considered a proper “conservative”? The constitution is what matters here, not social practices. We are not Americans, nor do we have a constitution, solely for the purpose of perpetuating a specific social construct. SoCons would prefer our constitution to afford their social mores protected status, in direct conflict with the ideal of personal liberty.

ernesto on February 20, 2010 at 10:53 AM

The problem with SoCons is that in their attempt to keep America a righteous nation, they think it must be lead by Christians and governed by Christian morality.

The thing is that SoCons don’t see that when you insist on a candidate or political party based on religion, you’re ultimately going to lose.

Because while people may be of many different faiths, most of them have essentially the same values.

Prop 8 is a wonderful example of how people of many different faiths united together to take a stand on an issue.

If SoCons want to be successful in pursuing their agendas, they have to stop insisting that the GOP Republican presidential candidate be a Christian.

There are many Mormons, Jews, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus and even atheists who have the same values and want that to be passed on to their children and those morals be the center of society.

But by insisting that the GOP be a Christian only party with Christian candidates, you’re alienating a LOT of people who share the same values but who may not have the same religion.

And by being so intolerant, the SoCons will lose their allies someday in the future because its not just gays that are not welcome in the GOP but everyone knows a Buddhist, Mormon, Jew, Hindu has no chance of ever winning as a GOP presidential candidate.

Conservative Samizdat on February 20, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Our country is done for. Look at all the supporters of a truly despicable and disgusting behavior! What’s next CPAC support for partial birth abortion?

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Because obviously consensual sex between adults is the exact same as slaughtering babies in the womb.

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Never said that genius, but that’s probably next.
Two consenting adults! That’s effin funny.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 1:52 PM

The conservative side has its restrictions, but that’s just veiled libtard slander.

Dark-Star on February 20, 2010 at 1:29 PM

I’m sorry, but WyoMike is right.

I can understand that SoCons are upset about gays being part of the GOP now.

But if SoCons can’t even handle a Mormon running for President, then SoCons have some serious problems and its gonna become an albatross that will bring down the GOP party.

The democrats had a female VP long before the GOP ever did. They ran a female in the 1980s and the GOP ran one in 2008.

The democrats had a jewish VP in the 2000 election. When was the last time the GOP had a non-Christian VP on the ticket?

When was the last time the GOP actually had a non Christian win the republican nomination?

You’re right. The GOP has some restrictions. Its pretty damn exclusive.

Conservative Samizdat on February 20, 2010 at 1:52 PM

What’s next? A group of S&M conservatives?

adamsweb on February 20, 2010 at 10:43 AM

Whoa! Sounds intriguing. :)

Because obviously consensual sex between adults is the exact same as slaughtering babies in the womb.

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Uh, we’re talking about perverted sex here. Consensual is a strawman word.

And yes, approval of perverted sex as a social construct is no different than approval of infanticide as a social construct. Both are in conflict with our republican system regardless of Rowe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas.

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 1:52 PM

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 1:52 PM

As Joe Wilson said, You Lie! You said the exact same thing.

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 1:52 PM

You are trying to sell Religious Morality as Republican Virtue and it will fail. You are better off selling snake oil.

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 1:57 PM

I can understand that SoCons are upset about gays being part of the GOP now.

Conservative Samizdat on February 20, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Liar. SoCons are disgusted with the politicization of perverted sex. They are even more disgusted with it being presented as normal when it clearly is not.

Then there is the vile falsehood that it is a private matter hurting no outsiders. It’s not – it’s a disease spreading lifestyle and incubator.

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 1:59 PM

You are trying to sell Religious Morality as Republican Virtue and it will fail. You are better off selling snake oil.

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 1:57 PM

You are confused. I never use religion to prove anything since believing something means it can’t be proven. So a belief can never be authoritative unless everyone agrees with the belief.

Perverted sex is a health threat to its adherents and to the population at large. That is a fact. Plus it’s disgusting.

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 2:02 PM

Conservative Samizdat on February 20, 2010 at 1:52 PM

We have had non-Christian Republican Presidents before. But non recently. Taft is probably the last President to be a Non-Christian.

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 2:02 PM

Liar. SoCons are disgusted with the politicization of perverted sex. They are even more disgusted with it being presented as normal when it clearly is not.

Then there is the vile falsehood that it is a private matter hurting no outsiders. It’s not – it’s a disease spreading lifestyle and incubator.

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 1:59 PM

My point is that if SoCons have hangups about what religion the Presidential candidate belongs to, you guys have far more serious issues than just the reasonable objection to the politicization and legitimization of sexual behaviors.

Conservative Samizdat on February 20, 2010 at 2:04 PM

I thought that we Conservatives held to the idea that Congressmen aren’t supposed to use their legislative power to discourage behavior that they find personally disgusting (driving an SUV, reading Ayn Rand, eating McDonald’s, smoking, etc.).

Smoking is a health threat to people who smoke. Should we outlaw smoking? What possible Conservative argument against such a ban would not apply equally to banning consensual homosexual sex?

I am a devout Christian, and I think homosexual sex is sinful. I also think blasphemy is sinful. But I don’t think the government should be in the business of rewarding or punishing either of them.

CliveStaples on February 20, 2010 at 2:08 PM

We have had non-Christian Republican Presidents before. But non recently. Taft is probably the last President to be a Non-Christian.

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 2:02 PM

You’re right. The last non-Christian president was 97 years ago.

Conservative Samizdat on February 20, 2010 at 2:09 PM

My point is that if SoCons have hangups about what religion the Presidential candidate belongs to, you guys have far more serious issues than just the reasonable objection to the politicization and legitimization of sexual behaviors.

Conservative Samizdat on February 20, 2010 at 2:04 PM

I apologize for calling you a liar.

I don’t think that religion has ANY place in the qualification debate, except for Islam which is a system of government and not a real religion. So it should be excluded from First Amendment protections relating to freedom of religion (while retaining the protections of freedom of speech and association).

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Nor do I have qualms about associating with fellow Conservative sinners (which includes every Conservative Christian that has posted here) in order to advance a political ideology.

If the goal was to make the government’s laws perfectly resemble my moral code, then I should worry about who I’m allying with, since our collective moral code could be substantially different than mine.

But we’re trying to do exactly the opposite: We’re trying to make the government more amoral, less involved in telling people what they can and can’t do.

CliveStaples on February 20, 2010 at 2:13 PM

I don’t think that religion has ANY place in the qualification debate, except for Islam which is a system of government and not a real religion. So it should be excluded from First Amendment protections relating to freedom of religion (while retaining the protections of freedom of speech and association).

Erm, it’s both. It is unquestionably religious (it involves a belief in Allah, the system of governance is based on religious codes). Denying freedom of religion to Muslims is absurd and tyrannical; the freedom to worship is not the freedom to undemocratically institute your religious beliefs as law.

CliveStaples on February 20, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Ron Paul is not a Holocaust denier, and he does not want to see Jews die in a fire again. He is anti-Israel, and many people equate that with anti-Semitism, not altogether unreasonably.

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 9:54 AM

Sorry, entropent, while — like you — I certainly do not wish for Ron Paul’s death, I do want to call you out on your laugher that being anti-Israel is not necessarily being anti-Semitic. Hmmmm. Okay, and why do people who hate Israel refer to Israel as “the Jewish State?” Because it IS, pre-eminently, the “Jewish State” established after WWII as the one place on this earth where Jews may flee from persecution. Saying one is “anti-Israel, but not anti-Semitic” is merely a gutless, PC way of saying, “I am an Anti-Semite Lite.” However, an Anti-Semite Lite is still — at the end of the day — an Anti-Semite, or a JLINO — Jew Lover in Name Only.

sanantonian on February 20, 2010 at 2:17 PM

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 2:02 PM

All sex is a health threat and when you take into account the amount of body fluids released by the endeavor they are all equally disgusting.

If Gays had as many sexual partners as the average heterosexual male you couldn’t make the ‘health’ argument.

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Denying freedom of religion to Muslims is absurd and tyrannical;

CliveStaples on February 20, 2010 at 2:17 PM

You are a dangerous fool. Attitudes like yours are directly supporting the enemy in a war where thousands of innocent Americans have already been killed by these filthy death worshippers.

The First Amendment does not protect enemies of the United States. Islam pretends to worship Allah as a method of covering their one true agenda – world conquest.

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 2:26 PM

If Gays had as many sexual partners as the average heterosexual male you couldn’t make the ‘health’ argument.

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 2:23 PM

If ‘gays’ did that, they would virtually monogamous. Most surveys show that homosexual males have sex partners numbering in the thousands versus a dozen or so for the average normal male.

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 2:29 PM

You think certain theorists have a point,

No one mentioned “theorists.” Only you.

You gave three examples of adults behaving badly and used it to support a preexisting bias.

Nope. I merely mentioned a school of thought that existed in this country not so long ago.

Unless you can produce some other credible research (a link? anything?) your comments stink of racial bigotry.

No, again.
They are merely observations of behavior.
No bigotry is involved.

I take that pretty seriously.

That is your problem, not mine.

What, you don’t like that? I’m even citing my sources! We’ve only asked for the same courtesy.

Diane on February 20, 2010 at 11:34 AM

I neither called on nor cited any “sources” other than my own extensive reading, education, travels and experiences of human nature and experiences.
You have no right to waterboard me on this thread about my views and I’m not interested in yours.
Now, drop it.

Jenfidel on February 20, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Do you honestly think she would be harmed more by aborting that baby than carry it to term, if she had gotten pregnant? If so, then you are not as intelligent as you think you are. I pray you never have to experience something like that.

ladyingray on February 20, 2010 at 1:17 PM

The problem in this case isn’t whether you’re sister would have been “harmed more.”
She would still have been killing the baby.
That is more harm.

And your misjudgement of my views on interracial marriages notwithstanding, I am no bigot.
I merely made a personal observation regarding long-held views in our culture and around the world by many, many others than myself.
I may hold such views while continuing to treat everyone I encounter with tolerance, civility and good will.

Jenfidel on February 20, 2010 at 3:17 PM

sanantonian on February 20, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Hello, San Antonian (love your city).

I think we agree- I believe I did say it was not unreasonable to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Almost all anti-Semites of the left will insist that they are merely anti-Zionist, but if you lift the lid, you will find a cauldron of scalding racism.

My point is certainly not that Ron Paul is a friend of the Jews by any means. He would strip Israel of its special relationship with the US, and cut off aid and weapons. But to be fair to Paul (again, I can’t believe I am defending him), he would cut off all aid to everyone. He may or may not have a particular dislike for the Jews, but he is not a Holocaust denier. I think it is important to make the distinction, because we must simply not tolerate Holocaust deniers.

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 4:08 PM

LTR/FTC
long time reader first time commenter

He says it is an abomination.

PrincipledPilgrim on February 19, 2010 at 7:04 PM

Um, no, he didn’t. The Old Testament said that.

MadisonConservative on February 19, 2010 at 7:08 PM

Leviticus 18:22 (King James Version)

22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

McCain Hater on February 20, 2010 at 4:16 PM

And perhaps it is emotional reasoning, but then again, humans are emotional. My sister was drugged and raped by three men. Do you honestly think she would be harmed more by aborting that baby than carry it to term, if she had gotten pregnant? If so, then you are not as intelligent as you think you are. I pray you never have to experience something like that.
ladyingray on February 20, 2010 at 1:17 PM

perhaps you’re not as familiar with my story as I thought. After being drugged and raped, I conceived my son who is playing outside with his little sister right now. I do speak from experience.

Diane on February 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 11 12 13 14