In defense of gay conservatives

posted at 9:20 pm on February 23, 2010 by Doctor Zero

Bryan Fischer, host of the American Family Association’s “Focal Point” radio talk show, is very upset about Hot Air’s nose dive into the thundercloud of gay politics, and angry that it could happen with our new “Christian ownership” at Salem Communications slumped lifelessly in the pilot’s seat:

Wow. Just as soon as the “Hot Air” blog was purchased by the Christian conglomerate Salem Communications from conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, it has suddenly become an advocate for all things gay. What in the world is up with that?

For background, GOPROUD is an organization dedicated to advancing special rights for homosexual behavior, and advocates the overthrow of the Defense of Marriage Act and the overthrow of the law banning homosexual service in the military.

Not only was GOPROUD welcomed at CPAC, an event which is supposed to be the annual showcase for conservative values, the organization was allowed to sponsor the event, giving visibility and recognition to its effort to legitimize sexual deviancy.

Fischer presses his face to the passenger windows of Hot Air, and sees Green Room contributor Repurblican crouched on the wing, tearing pieces of conservative purity from the starboard engine:

A Saturday post, from Repurblican, takes one of my new heroes, Ryan Sorba of California Young Americans for Freedom, to task for making the common sense statement at CPAC that homosexual sex cannot lead to reproduction. For this obviously correct observation, he was booed off the stage. And “Hot Air,” now under Christian management, has made Sorba out to be the bad guy.

Sorba showed the courage of his convictions by simply declaring the truth. Said Sorba, “Civil rights are grounded in natural rights, and natural rights are grounded in human nature…and the intelligible end of the reproductive act is reproduction…civil rights, when they conflict with natural rights, are contrary…” At this point, his remarks were drowned out by a chorus of vitriolic, angry boos. (View video of his remarks here.)

Consequently, Sorba said, “I’d like to condemn CPAC for bringing GOPRIDE (he meant “GOPROUD”) to this event.”

For speaking truth to power, “Hot Air” accused Sorba of “bombthrowing,” and said his remarks represented a “gratuitous and public…slam on homosexuals.”

The idea that Salem Communications has somehow enforced new pro-gay editorial standards on Hot Air is ridiculous. So is acting like a jerk in the name of ideological purity at CPAC. This kind of factional infighting is obviously unhelpful to overcoming the enormous challenges facing us in the next few elections. It would be tragic for the nation if we left it rolling towards the edge of the socialist cliff, while we spend our days tearing the mantle of “true conservatism” into a thousand pieces, and accusing each other of heresy. A certain degree of this conflict was inevitable, as different groups struggle for control of the resurgent Right, from David Frum squeaking that it’s not too late to reach an understanding with our progressive masters, to Bryan Fischer advising his readers to “kiss off” Hot Air because some of our contributors dared to speak up in defense of GOPROUD.

I think my own credentials as a defender of traditional marriage are in order. They can be reviewed in detail here and here. I do not hold these beliefs out of animosity toward gay people, or disrespect for committed homosexual relationships. I believe in the positive value of the marriage tradition, and I reserve the right to celebrate that value without denigrating those who don’t participate in it.

The gay-marriage movement is necessarily aggressive, because they seek a substantial change in society. I appreciate the strength of their conviction, and as long as they respect mine, we can have a civil discussion. The temptation to detonate conviction into anger is strong, and counter-productive. I’m no more impressed by Ryan Sorba’s act than I was by Perez Hilton’s.

It’s remarkable how much the focus has shifted away from social issues, in the year since I began writing for Hot Air. Carrie Prejean’s encounter with Perez Hilton was one of the hot topics back then. Now we stand in the shadow of a looming catastrophe which threatens the liberty and prosperity of our entire society. It’s not surprising to see our focus shift toward the common menace. I don’t feel traditional marriage is any less important than I did a year ago, but if GOPROUD wants to have that discussion later, after we wrestle down unsustainable government spending, and clear the danger of being thrown in jail for failure to purchase government-approved health insurance, that’s fine by me.

I hope to reach something more than a temporary truce between the factions of the Right. The assertion that we are all captives of some agenda, which we must accept in full or reject utterly, is the language of identity politics, and of totalitarianism. The Fischer criticism of Hot Air demonstrates the foolishness of assuming that every member of an identity group is party to some kind of agenda. If there’s a “Christian agenda,” then either Salem Communications or Bryan Fischer was not invited to the meetings.

We can be united in our appreciation for liberty… and this requires respect for the individual, just as the embrace of collectivism ultimately brings contempt. You can’t believe what I do about the transcendent rights of the individual, and the limitless potential of free men and women, while simultaneously assuming you can judge their innermost thoughts by their sexual preference, or the color of their skin. Rejecting gay conservatives because they disagree with me about marriage would be crawling back into the walled compound of my little tribe, and expecting them to do likewise. Each tribe would then resume shoving the wrecking ball of the State at the others, until someone gets flattened. That’s not the game conservatives, or Americans, should be playing.

It’s not going to be easy to hold the components of the Right together, especially as our ranks swell, and the dependents of State rally to its tattered banner of rage and despair. The constituencies of the Left have been fairly easy to buy off. Sometimes it was only necessary to buy their leadership off, and leave the common folk to suffer beneath failed programs they were told they have a moral duty to accept without question. No such arrangement will suffice for a conservative movement united by its rejection of the bloated and dying central government we inherited from the twentieth century… but still working to reconcile discordant visions of what should come next.

We can show each other a little grace and courtesy without abandoning our strongly-held beliefs… or at least refrain from trying to excommunicate each other. Leave the identity politics to the nitwits who look at Marco Rubio and see a coconut.

Cross-posted at www.doczero.org.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

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 2 3

HotAir goes pink, rainbow, and immoral!

How disgusting!

IntheNet on February 23, 2010 at 10:09 PM

Yeah… Hope you wore some protection from all the scum here before you posted.

MeatHeadinCA on February 23, 2010 at 10:11 PM

Take your Ronulan, paleocon, Hitler-excusing bulls**t out of here.

MadisonConservative on February 23, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Oh, come on… they’re just upset because they don’t have a Paul post yet… Let them have their fun.

MeatHeadinCA on February 23, 2010 at 10:12 PM

atheling on February 23, 2010 at 10:06 PM

Well I agree with you. It definitionally cannot be marriage; it’s the legal rights and benefits that should be extended to them.

Free Constitution on February 23, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Who would have ever thought that Allahpundit would go all Andi Sullivan on us???

Blake on February 23, 2010 at 10:13 PM

American Power tracked-back with, ‘Gay Conservatives After CPAC’.

Donald Douglas on February 23, 2010 at 10:14 PM

Free Constitution on February 23, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Sure.

atheling on February 23, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Both of those have clear, calculable threats.

So you claim. It would be quite easy to argue that they don’t.

Disagreement on gay marriage does not.

MadisonConservative on February 23, 2010 at 10:06 PM

So you claim. Some would argue that being forced to subsidize immoral behavior is the very definition of tyranny and a gross violation of individual liberty.

Anyway, I wanted Doctor Zero’s opinion, not yours. Unless you fully endorse every single word he has said in the opening piece.

Darth Executor on February 23, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Philosophy: We have Leviticus and we also have to accept others even with imperfections. With all mine, I know that we are none perfect. Let us accept the gays so long as they don’t hurt others.

Practicality: I have nice clothes and a decorated house because of flamin’ gays. Lord knows what else they have done for me that I don’t know about. My hetero love and prayers go to them.

IlikedAUH2O on February 23, 2010 at 10:16 PM

Why not everyone add, just to be ‘aware’ and ’sensitive’, the “I’m straight” infomercial in everyday conversation? How would that work for everyone?

Liam on February 23, 2010 at 9:32 PM

If you did that, everyone would assume you were gay…

Lehosh on February 23, 2010 at 10:16 PM

On the other hand, if you are a gay and you want to live in a nation where you are free to start a business that may someday become the next WalMart, great!
If you want to live in a nation that is not a police state, fantastic, join our party!
If you believe people should be free to worship as they please, wonderful, support our cause!
If you are for smaller government, low taxes and a great economy and support a strong military, the Republican party is the place to be!

However, if all you really support is the right to have sex anywhere and every where any time you want it, regardless of who it may offend, we’ll stop the boat and you can get off here! We don’t need you!
If you think homosexuals deserve a special status in society and your sexual desires to do it with anyone you want any way you want any time you want somehow trump my right to free speech, then you can take a hike. You are not a conservative!

I heard some booing there in the CPAC video last week directed at a fellow conservative who opposed gays at CPAC. I’m wondering, would any of those so called gay conservatives ever boo a gay pride parade? Would they ever boo a single gay activist? No, but booing a conservative at CPAC while he’s at the podium voicing an opinion,, yeah,, that sounds real real conservative to me!

JellyToast on February 23, 2010 at 10:16 PM

So you claim. Some would argue that being forced to subsidize immoral behavior is the very definition of tyranny and a gross violation of individual liberty.

Darth Executor on February 23, 2010 at 10:15 PM

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of that which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical – Thomas Jefferson

atheling on February 23, 2010 at 10:17 PM

The silence at HotAir is golden!

The Dean on February 23, 2010 at 10:08 PM

I can’t wait until crazy uncle Ronnie runs and opponents start airing ads of all the stupid crap he says and does.

Though as I said before, I’d be happy if Ron won because after one term under Emperor Ronulus and libertarians will become extinct for the next 100 years.

Darth Executor on February 23, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Who would have ever thought that Allahpundit would go all Andi Sullivan on us???

Blake on February 23, 2010 at 10:13 PM

Meghan McCain will do that to a man, I hear.

Spirit of 1776 on February 23, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Now, ask me if I thought Ryan Sorba’s approach to the matter was correct… No. I don’t think you use the pulpit to call out another group. Focus on what you want to say, not on what some other guy endorsed or didn’t endorse. Sorba had bad form.

But it remains a fact that no good can come out of identity politics. I’m sure groups of “gay conservatives” and “female conservatives” and “black conservatives” all exist and by and large support conservatism. But unless they are specifically focusing on a counter-message to the left’s brand of ideological purity, I don’t want conservatism to devolve into pitting these groups against each other. Conservatism is good for all groups, there is no conservatism specific to blacks, hispanics, women, or gays. Unless you exist as a counterinsurgency or mole group, I see little reason why your equipment, skin color, or sexual proclivities should be the distinguishing characteristic of your group.

BKennedy on February 23, 2010 at 10:20 PM

…California already prohibits housing and job discrimination against gays and lesbians…

http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=668

And then eHarmony settled a lawsuit because it didn’t initially supply same-sex connections.

Sure–my religious rights won’t be infringed…

Except maybe at my church.

Liam on February 23, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Important choices are ahead folks. As long as the over arching goal is conservatism and the Constitution prevailing over this malignant, progressive statism, I’m listening to all ideas.
Clear thinking and eloquent analysis from Dr Z can, and will do much to guide and inspire.

ontherocks on February 23, 2010 at 10:21 PM

However, if all you really support is the right to have sex anywhere and every where any time you want it, regardless of who it may offend, we’ll stop the boat and you can get off here! We don’t need you!

Strawman.

If you think homosexuals deserve a special status in society and your sexual desires to do it with anyone you want any way you want any time you want somehow trump my right to free speech, then you can take a hike. You are not a conservative!

Strawman.

I heard some booing there in the CPAC video last week directed at a fellow conservative who opposed gays at CPAC. I’m wondering, would any of those so called gay conservatives ever boo a gay pride parade? Would they ever boo a single gay activist? No, but booing a conservative at CPAC while he’s at the podium voicing an opinion,, yeah,, that sounds real real conservative to me!

Delicious strawman.

No one here is advocating any of those things.

justinx0r on February 23, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Hey, guys, in case you got sick of this ghey thread, there’s another one up in the headlines.

MeatHeadinCA on February 23, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Free Constitution on February 23, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Forget it! We have an interest in promoting marriage – the real kind, not the pretend kind. That is why they get special benefits. Why extend them to gays and not singles with roommates?

Blake on February 23, 2010 at 10:24 PM

waah wahh wahh i dont wanna read about gays
waaah waah waah

sheesh

blatantblue on February 23, 2010 at 10:25 PM

No one here is advocating any of those things.

justinx0r on February 23, 2010 at 10:22 PM

BS. What he listed are things that gays are doing. You’re the one setting up the strawman.

atheling on February 23, 2010 at 10:27 PM

The government is not neutral…

ninjapirate on February 23, 2010 at 9:59 PM

But they need to be neutered.

They have control over our lives in so many ways that they should not. Sometimes the intent of their intervention is something I would agree with. I’d rather take a blowtorch to the whole way we have viewed government for generations, and lose the percentage I personally support, than make piecemeal arguments case by case and maintain the status quo.

The battle is never won longterm by government protection anyway. It gives people a false sense of security. Fosters a lazy attitude that government is taking care of it. They really aren’t. They are not protecting the sanctity of marriage, and they never can/could. It’s much like poverty. True, long lasting success only comes from commitment and hard work in your communities.

stldave on February 23, 2010 at 10:27 PM

I agree with the posters that have said that they are for civil unions. I get so tired of the “gay community” pitching a fit because they can’t be “married.” Civil unions can almost all the same benefits. I see nothing wrong with civil unions at all. That being said, Sorba is still a dick!

NathanG on February 23, 2010 at 10:28 PM

Forget it! We have an interest in promoting marriage – the real kind, not the pretend kind. That is why they get special benefits. Why extend them to gays and not singles with roommates?

Blake on February 23, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Arbritrary definition of marriage is arbritrary. Why not stop using non-sequitors? If gays want to get married and be conservatives who cares? Who cares if they receive the same benefits as straight married couples? It doesn’t hurt you or “society”. You’re like the stupid leftists that think that billboards and commercials invade their “right” not to see them.

justinx0r on February 23, 2010 at 10:28 PM

BS. What he listed are things that gays are doing. You’re the one setting up the strawman.

atheling on February 23, 2010 at 10:27 PM

Nope, he was using things that some gays have done and applied them to all gays. The very definition of a strawman.

Two men getting married does not equal any of the things he listed.

justinx0r on February 23, 2010 at 10:31 PM

Who cares if they receive the same benefits as straight married couples? It doesn’t hurt you or “society”

justinx0r on February 23, 2010 at 10:28 PM

1. Taxpayer pays for bureaucracy marriage uses. Unless you think judges and the like work for free.
2. I do not want the government, which represents me, to endorse immoral behavior. Your implication that it doesn’t affect us is absurd.

Darth Executor on February 23, 2010 at 10:32 PM

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of that which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical – Thomas Jefferson

atheling on February 23, 2010 at 10:17 PM

Does that include the libtards whose constant mantra is “cut the military budget and use it for social programs! (AKA vote-buying)”

Part of the price of the American life is that tax dollars are going to be used for things that people don’t like, or even abhor. Now – we can sure debate what is necessary and what is not, but there’s just no chance in making everybody happy on this matter.

Dark-Star on February 23, 2010 at 10:32 PM

We can be united in our appreciation for liberty… and this requires respect for the individual

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This says it all Doc!

redridinghood on February 23, 2010 at 10:34 PM

It doesn’t hurt…“society”.

justinx0r on February 23, 2010 at 10:28 PM

Can you back that up with a study? One I read years ago, by an admitted lesbian, opposed gay marriage for sociological reasons, like that gay men tend to be more promiscuous than most other segments of the population. Her reasoning was that the divorce rate would climb, and more divorces are bad for any society.

I can’t find that old publishing online, but it was an interesting read. Quite frankly, no one is sure how gay marriages will affect the society, as it hasn’t been studied. Talk about straw men.

But note, through history, any society that accepted gay relationships has collapsed. A correlation? I won’t say for certain, like you can’t say for sure gay marriage is harmless. There’s no solid evidence either way.

Liam on February 23, 2010 at 10:34 PM

Hey! The new Gay Thread is up! The new Gay thread is up!

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 10:35 PM

I’m Christian, Conservative. Even though Salem is Christian-owned and HotAir is too, I don’t want any kind of limitations on what HA can discuss. Let people make their arguments and let the chips fall where they might. We are not the Left who are fond of stifling speech they don’t like. We are engage in a great debate about a diversity of ideas, some unpalatable and some not. And no, I’m not in favor of gay “marriage.”

SilentWatcher on February 23, 2010 at 10:35 PM

Your God is an angry hateful God. My God loves your God, even though secretly he thinks your God is a narrow-minded putz.

Grow Fins on February 23, 2010 at 10:08 PM

My God, the God of the Bible, is a loving God.
Is a doctor who tells his patient he has cancer hateful? Is a man who tries to warn a speeding driver that a bridge is out ahead and he may crash narrow minded?
Well, I’ll agree with you on one thing. Yes, I am narrow minded. Jesus said in Matthew:

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.
For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”

I seriously do not care, on a personal level, whether someone is gay or not. I will be friends with anyone who will be friends with me. People who are homosexual have the right to live, work and marry just as I do. They have the right to breath air the same as me. I wish no one harm. But your right to be gay stops when you step into my face and demand I accept and embrace your lifestyle! Your right to be gay stops when you demand to have sex openly in the streets! When you come into our schools and promote your agendas!

There is such a thing as sexual deviancy. The question is, would any homosexual advocate alive today in the United States possibly even be willing to acknowledge in public that sexual deviancy can exist?

JellyToast on February 23, 2010 at 10:36 PM

Does that include the libtards whose constant mantra is “cut the military budget and use it for social programs! (AKA vote-buying)”

Part of the price of the American life is that tax dollars are going to be used for things that people don’t like, or even abhor. Now – we can sure debate what is necessary and what is not, but there’s just no chance in making everybody happy on this matter.

Dark-Star on February 23, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Agreed. This is probably a really stupid example, but the Corporation for Public Broadcasting comes to mind. One way or another, we pay for PBS and NPR to operate. I don’t think they should exist as public services at all. Let corporations privately fund them.

NathanG on February 23, 2010 at 10:36 PM

One I read years ago, by an admitted lesbian, opposed gay marriage for sociological reasons, like that gay men tend to be more promiscuous than most other segments of the population. Her reasoning was that the divorce rate would climb, and more divorces are bad for any society.

Liam on February 23, 2010 at 10:34 PM

Gay men marrying will lead to more promiscuity? Not sure how that logically follows or how it would have any effect on existing marriages.

dedalus on February 23, 2010 at 10:37 PM

Does that include the libtards whose constant mantra is “cut the military budget and use it for social programs! (AKA vote-buying)”

Part of the price of the American life is that tax dollars are going to be used for things that people don’t like, or even abhor. Now – we can sure debate what is necessary and what is not, but there’s just no chance in making everybody happy on this matter.

Dark-Star on February 23, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Bingo.

MadisonConservative on February 23, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Does that include the libtards whose constant mantra is “cut the military budget and use it for social programs! (AKA vote-buying)”

Dark-Star on February 23, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Oh, don’t you know? There’s this magic place, a Costco in East Fongqueek, Egypt, where we can make a straight-up trade of national security for social justice. It’s two miles past the unicorn, across the street from the Skittles factory.

Liam on February 23, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Arbritrary definition of marriage is arbritrary. Why not stop using non-sequitors? If gays want to get married and be conservatives who cares? Who cares if they receive the same benefits as straight married couples? It doesn’t hurt you or “society”. You’re like the stupid leftists that think that billboards and commercials invade their “right” not to see them.

justinx0r on February 23, 2010 at 10:28 PM

Arbitrary definition of marriage is arbitrary only in your mind.

Here’s a clue: everything the gays want could be much more easily obtained if they told the trial lawyers in the same party to change power of attorney, health care proxy, and visitation laws.

Guess why they haven’t done it? Because the benefits gays legitimately want from marriage, if granted in ways that are more reliable and solid than some nebulous “civil union” or “marriage” would eliminate the political support the gay mafia has.

Just like Obama’s health care bill is not about health care, gay marriage is not about marriage. It is about norming, endorsing, and subsidizing a deviant, non-procreative, more often platonic sexual behavior and pretending it has the same benefit to the general welfare as a heterosexual marriage. Only willful blindness and political correctness would lead you to believe that any other organization of a family unit is equivalent to the one ordained by natural law.

I care deeply about not endorsing a foot in the door for religious bigotry and setting a lasting example of how government tyranny can supercede natural law, common sense, and the will of decent, moral people.

Maybe you don’t see it because as long as your taxes are kept low you don’t really care what boondoggles the state involves itself in. It’s not enough to arbitrarily support every relationship that don’t suck as much as single parenthood home subsidized by the government.

BKennedy on February 23, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Blah,blah,blah,
Hey Zero, Gay special rights would never be sought after by Homosexuals who might be conservative. Only a lefty infiltrator would want me and other conservatives to acquiesce to their special rights demands. On this one Zero, you and Ala are dead wrong.

david kumbera on February 23, 2010 at 10:40 PM

Gay men marrying will lead to more promiscuity? Not sure how that logically follows or how it would have any effect on existing marriages.

dedalus on February 23, 2010 at 10:37 PM

Please reread, in context and without bias. That should make my point more clear.

Liam on February 23, 2010 at 10:41 PM

The GOP is a coalition of Social Conservatives, Fiscal Conservatives, and National Security Conservatives. I hail from the socially moderate wing of the party. Until and unless someone with serious constitutional law expertise convinces me that extending civil marriage to gay Americans will NOT lead to polygamous marriages being recognized – I won’t support gay marriage. That said – gays can be fiscal conservatives and strong on national defense. They may also be conservative on some other social issues. We need the entire team working together to thwart the socialist views of our well-meaning but deeply inept and wrong-thinking president.

Gay Americans are Americans. Gay Republicans are Republicans. Enough said.

Jill1066 on February 23, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Until and unless someone with serious constitutional law expertise convinces me that extending civil marriage to gay Americans will NOT lead to polygamous marriages being recognized – I won’t support gay marriage.

Jill1066 on February 23, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Since islam allows a man to have four wives, polygamy with religious “freedom” as an excuse will absolutely follow gay marriage.

Rebar on February 23, 2010 at 10:47 PM

SilentWatcher on February 23, 2010 at 10:35 PM

What limitations? Every day we get our daily multiple gay marriage indoctrination.

Blake on February 23, 2010 at 10:48 PM

Gay couples DO have the same rights as everyone else. They are free to marry someone from the opposite sex the same way you or I are.

alohapundit on February 23, 2010 at 9:48 PM

Separate but equal, right?

But gay sex, in my Faith, IS a sin, and in practice you KNOW I’d lose the court battle if it came down to it.

arbitrary outrage

I’m sick to death of hearing about gays, blacks, Hispanics, what-have-you. I’m sick of having it all slammed in my face at every turn.

Jim Carey, in a skit comedy show of the 90s, did a goof on this whole gay thing. He goes into a McDonalds, orders his meal, and adds, “And I’m gay.” Everything he said came with the “I’m gay” part.

Who the F cares? Why not everyone add, just to be ‘aware’ and ’sensitive’, the “I’m straight” infomercial in everyday conversation? How would that work for everyone?

Liam on February 23, 2010 at 9:32 PM

Other than dog whistle comments, do you guys have any other secret codes by which you communicate in public?

The Race Card on February 23, 2010 at 10:51 PM

Grow Fins is funny. Humor is a rare and precious gem in these parts.

Just something I’ve noticed.

happyfeet on February 23, 2010 at 10:56 PM

It is a bit ironic too, that Young Americans for Freedom, a group that both Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan had prominent roles in, sends up some guy like Sorba, when his views are the opposite of what those two believed in.

Goldwater or Reagan would have never wanted to shun a conservative group for being gay. And neither believed that homosexuals choose to be that way, but Sorba does

firepilot on February 23, 2010 at 10:59 PM

The idea that Salem Communications has somehow enforced new pro-gay editorial standards on Hot Air is ridiculous. So is acting like a jerk in the name of ideological purity at CPAC. This kind of factional infighting is obviously unhelpful to overcoming the enormous challenges facing us in the next few elections.

Challenges like countering the attack on family life, in the form of perverting it, by treating unnatural acts as though they are natural. Tell me, what is being CONSERVED by these “conservatives,” because it isn’t the natural order, but chaos?

manwithblackhat on February 23, 2010 at 11:03 PM

like diamonds

happyfeet on February 23, 2010 at 11:06 PM

firepilot on February 23, 2010 at 10:59 PM

GOPRoud shouldn’t have been shunned for being Gay. They should have been shunned for being Liberal.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 11:06 PM

I’m wondering, what do “gay conservatives” bring to the table, other than their sexual preference and attached agenda? How does that agenda differ from the liberal/left gay agenda?

All I can think of is gay marriage, which is exactly the same as what the liberal/left gays want. Since that very issue has been voted on in, what, 13 states, and lost each time, why are we hitching our wagon to not only a very divisive issue, but a proved loser?

Rebar on February 23, 2010 at 11:09 PM

Grow Fins is funny. Humor is a rare and precious gem in these parts.

Just something I’ve noticed.

happyfeet on February 23, 2010 at 10:56 PM

Grow Fins is funny.

But not in the humorous way.

BKennedy on February 23, 2010 at 11:13 PM

As a gay conservative, I wish to sincerely advocate the most radically crackpot right-wing position I can think of–returning to the values of the Constitution. Let’s restore the freedom of association promised by the First Amendment. If people aren’t forced to associate with gay people due to anti-discrimination laws, then maybe, just maybe , they’ll find in their interest to associate with us. I’d rather be genuinely liked than be the recipient of coerced niceness. I have the balls to deal with the fact that some people, somewhere may dislike me, and I have little patience with the delicate flowers wither because someone doesn’t like them.

thuja on February 23, 2010 at 11:25 PM

What if a group of conservatives disagrees with you on foreign wars? Or health care?

Darth Executor on February 23, 2010 at 9:56 PM

That would depend on the nature of the disagreement, wouldn’t it? If their disagreement on health care meant they support a massive government takeover, they’re not “conservative.” It’s not the No-Homer Club any more if we let Homer join.

I disagree with the notion that someone’s sexual preference renders them incapable of appreciating the virtue of individual liberty and restrained government. Even if a case were made that sexual preference somehow made gays more inclined to support statism, it would not be true that every single individual followed that inclination, so excluding the entire class of gay people from the conservative movement would be contrary to our belief in assessing people as individuals.

I realize many gay conservatives disagree with me on the topic of marriage. In this moment, the things we agree upon are far more important than the places we differ. Later on, the differences may become more significant. The quest for permanent solutions to deep social issues is the source of much misery.

Doctor Zero on February 23, 2010 at 11:34 PM

Ryan Sorba is a courageous hero as opposed to those “conservative” lavender pretenders who hijacked CPAC and evidently Hot Air.

Conservatism is more than hating Obamacare, outrageous deficit spending and being pro-military. It also embodies family values and morals consistent with millennia of traditional Judeo-Christian history ethics.

TBenton on February 23, 2010 at 11:35 PM

Your property rights trump their expectation of service, but that’s another battle. I’m not saying you have to like it, I’m just saying gay couples deserve the same rights as married couples. Tell me why they don’t? Because they’re gay?

Free Constitution on February 23, 2010 at 9:45 PM

There is no right to have a marriage recognized by the state.

Bill C on February 23, 2010 at 11:39 PM

Part of the price of the American life is that tax dollars are going to be used for things that people don’t like, or even abhor. Now – we can sure debate what is necessary and what is not, but there’s just no chance in making everybody happy on this matter.

Dark-Star on February 23, 2010 at 10:32 PM

I think a great deal of the tension in our society comes from sheer volume of tax dollars going to things we abhor. The more money we let the government spend, the greater the chance they’ll spend it on something abhorrent. The atmosphere is thick with force, and resistance.

Reduce this pressure, and some of our disagreements will become less painful. That should make it easier to talk, instead of screaming.

Doctor Zero on February 23, 2010 at 11:42 PM

Considering the non stop pro-gay marriage posts, links to pro-gay marriage articles, and to the pro gay marriage phony polls, it sure feels like that there is a pro gay editorial stance on HA and that is not ridiculous.

Blake on February 23, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Grow Fins begs to differ, and has already detected the secret homophobia behind my decision to write an essay called “In Defense of Gay Conservatives.”

Doctor Zero on February 23, 2010 at 11:47 PM

So you mean: In defense of conservatives, who are gay.

Spirit of 1776 on February 23, 2010 at 9:41 PM

I guess that’s more semantically accurate. I was originally thinking of calling it “In Defense Of Conservatives Who Take Robert Pattinson Seriously As A Vampire,” but I decided to keep it short and punchy.

Doctor Zero on February 23, 2010 at 11:50 PM

Things I believe:

-Homosexuality is a trait determined either within the genome and/or by hormones within the womb.

-Intelligent design is not scientific because the theory has no provable or disprovable hypotheses.

-There is no right to marriage by anyone in the constitution and it is unconstitutional for a court to impose a standard of marriage on the people. If homosexuals want the right to marry they should petition their legislators.

-The conservative position on gay marriage will be what the majority of conservatives want. At this time it appears that the majority of conservatives and Americans have rejected gay marriage.

-I think conservatives should have a civil debate on whether homosexuality is innate and we should debate gay marriage. Either side should refrain from name calling and gay marriage advocates should be especially wary about employing the shaming tactics of the left. As someone whose position on gay marriage is evolving towards acceptance I welcome gay conservatives with the cavaet that you must answer serious questions and you should not expect conservatives to support judicial fiat.

Bill C on February 23, 2010 at 11:53 PM

Desire for dubious emotional benefit of having the same recognition as a traditional heterosexual couple does not a right make.

PrezHussein on February 23, 2010 at 11:53 PM

If you were to empower deranged extremists like Ry and Bry you’d end up making society more liberal I think. And fairly quickly.

happyfeet on February 23, 2010 at 11:53 PM

-Ryan Sorba had every right to speak his mind and it was rude to boo him. That being said he did come off as a meathead frat boy and he appears to have little man syndrome.

However, if a gay man loudly told me I should ask my wife to fellate me in her presence I would punch him.

Bill C on February 23, 2010 at 11:58 PM

Ryan Sorba is a courageous hero as opposed to those “conservative” lavender pretenders who hijacked CPAC and evidently Hot Air.

Conservatism is more than hating Obamacare, outrageous deficit spending and being pro-military. It also embodies family values and morals consistent with millennia of traditional Judeo-Christian history ethics.

TBenton on February 23, 2010 at 11:35 PM

I read shit like this and I just laugh. Darkly. It’s been bitterly ironic, the last few days, to read a LOT of bigoted posts in the various gay-themed topics that have been posted, and see those same people argue that this blog has been ruined because people like Allah are too “gay-friendly”.

Well, if the tolerance of guys like Doctor Zero or Allah offends you, please, do leave. If their insistence that homosexuals aren’t subhuman means that they’ve breached “true conservative” values or “Judeo-Christian history ethics”, then maybe this blog isn’t for you.

Vyce on February 24, 2010 at 12:00 AM

Great post Doctor Zero!

Squid Shark on February 24, 2010 at 12:01 AM

Bill of Rights did not see the need to give heterosexual rights. Homosexuals can have all the rights without special relationship status like civil unions or redefined matrimony.

PrezHussein on February 24, 2010 at 12:03 AM

Ladies and gentlemen, let us have a vocabulary exercise.

The word is tolerance.

Now, the Leftoids have stretched it all out of recognition, but what I’m talking about is the original, basic meaning. It is this: if you dislike something, even to the point of hate, but put up with it anyway and don’t go out of your way to address it or express your distaste, that’s tolerance.

If you have tolerance for pain, you can have an easier time when you go to the dentist, and the dentist will have an easier time working on you. If you have tolerance for alcohol, you can continue to function on some level when everybody else at the party is zonked out. It doesn’t mean that you like pain, or feel that being drunk is a good thing; it means that tolerance for something you don’t like, or that interferes with your functioning in some way, can make it easier for you to accomplish something.

You don’t have to like homosexuality; you don’t have to approve of it; you certainly don’t have to promote it. But if you can develop tolerance for homosexuals, and realize that at least some homosexuals have goals that are congruent with yours, you (and we, and they) will be more able to work toward, and hopefully accomplish, our goals.

Assuming that tolerance means promotion, approval, or even acceptance is a Leftoid mistake, not a conservative ideal. Just the opposite: tolerance by definition means you don’t like it, but put up with it anyway. We need some tolerance.

Regards,
Ric

warlocketx on February 24, 2010 at 12:04 AM

I’m wondering, what do “gay conservatives” bring to the table, other than their sexual preference and attached agenda? How does that agenda differ from the liberal/left gay agenda?

All I can think of is gay marriage, which is exactly the same as what the liberal/left gays want. Since that very issue has been voted on in, what, 13 states, and lost each time, why are we hitching our wagon to not only a very divisive issue, but a proved loser?

Rebar

Well why let anyone then be a conservative? Why not just divide us all up, and start deciding what groups are not welcome. Hey first we can tell the gays to get lost, then get those pesky athiests out. Maybe the Mormons or any Hindus next too. Especially those Gingers, we all know they dont have souls! Maybe the daywalkers can stay though

I could really give a damn what someones religion or lack thereof, or their sexuality is, or race, or any of that stuff is, as long as they believe in a smaller less intrusive and less spending government. IF someone is going to help stop big government and Obama, who cares what their sexuality is. I would say opposing Obamas and Pelosis agenda, is by itself bringing something to the table.

I would vote for a gay buddhist small government conservative, over someone who wants to turn a GOP meeting into Bible class and would use the government to fight culture battles.

Speaking of agendas, I have thought those who came to the GOP because they thought it was a great way to get moral legislation passed and to change the GOP from a small government party to a evangelical values party, seem to have quite an agenda of their own when they left the Democratic Party.

I really do not care for a nanny state of social liberals or social conservatives

firepilot on February 24, 2010 at 12:10 AM

Epic Fail, Doctor Zero. The same old, “let’s not argue now, come see me tomorrow when I’ve gone fishing” ain’t gonna fly. We heard it with deficits during the Bush Admin, we heard it about capitalism during the bailouts, and now we hear that maybe in four or ten years we’ll argue why GOProud was invited to CPAC.

The Socialist Monster is already reeling. Obama can’t even get enough Democrat votes for healthcare–because he’s too proabortion for that caucus! We are NOT in imminent doom and we got plenty of time before we completely flip on identity politics, to ask “What The Hell”?

CPAC was supposed to be the funeral of social conservatism. We know the drill by now, pal; the Center-Left has no truces, only strategic concessions. “If you didn’t object to GOProud at CPAC, then how can you complain now?” “if you didn’t want Scott Brown to vote for pork, why’d you support him?” “if you didn’t want amnesty to come up again, why’d you re-elect Bush?”

Unfortunately the corpse at the funeral started hollering. And the reaction wasn’t “Mr. Sorba, that was rude, however much many of us agree with you”. No, the reaction was and has been Kulturkampf. Social Conservatives elected Carter. We’re just socialists by other names. We’re a stuck brake on a party of swingers.

No Doctor Zero, not when you get around to it, but today and for the next three years, we’re gonna argue in favor of personal conscience, traditional religious liberty, and against the DOOMED, QUIXOTIC AND PROVEN FAILURE that is refusing to keep liberal yahoos off the federal courts. Waving Amendment X and a state law, against ACLU lawyers claiming Amendments IX and XIV legalized everything 150 years ago, didn’t work in Planned Parenthood v Casey and it won’t work on gay marriage either. Only regular, coordinated, and intellectual OPPOSITION to liberal court stacking can succeed– unless you mean to fail, and want a Court ruling to save face.

Choose. And fight as you have chosen.

Chris_Balsz on February 24, 2010 at 12:14 AM

Ryan Sorba had every right to speak his mind and it was rude to boo him. That being said he did come off as a meathead frat boy and he appears to have little man syndrome.

Bill C on February 23, 2010 at 11:58 PM

Was not the meatheaded frat boyishness and little man syndrome the cause of the booing?

Doctor Zero on February 24, 2010 at 12:14 AM

Arbritrary definition of marriage is arbritrary. Why not stop using non-sequitors? If gays want to get married and be conservatives who cares? Who cares if they receive the same benefits as straight married couples? It doesn’t hurt you or “society”. You’re like the stupid leftists that think that billboards and commercials invade their “right” not to see them.

justinx0r on February 23, 2010 at 10:28 PM

An arbitrary definition of marriage would be marriage between anything other than a man and a woman. I care because the best way to raise happy healthy children is by a man and a woman married to each other. That is why it is necessary to encourage and benefit marriage between a man and a woman. And yes, for that reason gay marriage does hurt me and society. And you’re like the dumbest a-hole who has posted in this thread.

Blake on February 24, 2010 at 12:18 AM

I think it is importnat to fight the gay agenda and I think social conservatism is as important as fiscal conservatism… when one starts to compromise core values one gets into trouble real fast…

CCRWM on February 24, 2010 at 12:18 AM

I read shit like this and I just laugh. Darkly. It’s been bitterly ironic, the last few days, to read a LOT of bigoted posts in the various gay-themed topics that have been posted, and see those same people argue that this blog has been ruined because people like Allah are too “gay-friendly”.

Well, if the tolerance of guys like Doctor Zero or Allah offends you, please, do leave. If their insistence that homosexuals aren’t subhuman means that they’ve breached “true conservative” values or “Judeo-Christian history ethics”, then maybe this blog isn’t for you.

Vyce on February 24, 2010 at 12:00 AM

Please don’t use the leftist tactic of shaming via name calling. It is not bigoted to question if homosexuality is innate anymore than it is bigoted to question global warming or natural selection.

Well why let anyone then be a conservative? Why not just divide us all up, and start deciding what groups are not welcome. Hey first we can tell the gays to get lost, then get those pesky athiests out. Maybe the Mormons or any Hindus next too. Especially those Gingers, we all know they dont have souls! Maybe the daywalkers can stay though

firepilot on February 24, 2010 at 12:10 AM

I certainly do not want gay conservatives to feel unwelcome. I would just like to be able to question the validity of the arguments for gay marriage without being called a bigot.

Bill C on February 24, 2010 at 12:20 AM

Surprised Sorba was even interested in being part of a group that associates itself with Reagan, when Reagan actually spoke out against a California law that would have allowed the state to fire gays just for being gay, and Reagan himself did not think that people choose to be gay.

Ronald Reagan may have been instrumental in California Proposition 6 being voted down.

firepilot on February 24, 2010 at 12:20 AM

Was not the meatheaded frat boyishness and little man syndrome the cause of the booing?

Doctor Zero on February 24, 2010 at 12:14 AM

I don’t know what happened before he went on stage but the booing did begin before he began to speak. There was booing against Alexander McCobin so there was probably confrontation before the speeches. (McCobin is obviously not a meathead frat boy.) Someone in charge should have stopped the speeches and given both sides a lesson in decorum.

Bill C on February 24, 2010 at 12:26 AM

Well why let anyone then be a conservative?

firepilot on February 24, 2010 at 12:10 AM

Same sex marriage is not a conservative issue – it is a libertarian issue.

Moreover, gays do not have to join the republicans as gays – if they’re fiscal conservatives, join this group, defense hawks that group, etc. By grouping themselves based on sexual preference, they’re playing identity politics, with a specific goal in mind – advancing the homosexual agenda. Looking at the republican party platform, clearly their agenda does not mesh well with it.

As far as a “nanny state”, the individual states have spoken loud and clear – no same sex marriage. Now because of this ridiculous event at CPAC we’re supposed to get on board with the gay agenda because of “tolerance”, as if that’s going to do anything but drive another wedge into our coalition.

I say if gays want to join the republicans, great, blacks hispanics asians whatever – wonderful, come on it. But leave your identity politics at the door, leave your agendas that don’t further conservatism there too.

Rebar on February 24, 2010 at 12:29 AM

Who cares if they receive the same benefits as straight married couples? It doesn’t hurt you or “society”.

Society is the one providing the benefits.

Chris_Balsz on February 24, 2010 at 12:33 AM

I certainly do not want gay conservatives to feel unwelcome. I would just like to be able to question the validity of the arguments for gay marriage without being called a bigot.

Bill C

I think an honest and intellectually open debate about gay marraige would be fine. Personally a lot of small government conservatives care less about someones sexuality and more about reversing this giant creep of government size and spending.

But I really do not see that gays are the biggest threat to marriage, when we already have sky high divorce rates and numbers of broken homes with dysfunctional families. There does not seem to be much sanctity left in marriage when half end in divorce.

firepilot on February 24, 2010 at 12:33 AM

You don’t have to like homosexuality; you don’t have to approve of it; you certainly don’t have to promote it. But if you can develop tolerance for homosexuals, and realize that at least some homosexuals have goals that are congruent with yours, you (and we, and they) will be more able to work toward, and hopefully accomplish, our goals.

Assuming that tolerance means promotion, approval, or even acceptance is a Leftoid mistake, not a conservative ideal. Just the opposite: tolerance by definition means you don’t like it, but put up with it anyway. We need some tolerance.

Regards,
Ric

We’re being tested for a reaction. If we agree, for the greater good, to refuse to object, then we will be called on, for the greater good, to refuse to object forever. That’s not limited to this issue. It is how liberal Republicans get things done in a right-wing party.

Chris_Balsz on February 24, 2010 at 12:37 AM

Homosexuality is not a conservative value, it’s a sin.

inchdeep on February 24, 2010 at 12:39 AM

There does not seem to be much sanctity left in marriage when half end in divorce.

firepilot on February 24, 2010 at 12:33 AM

Irrelevant.

Fact is, throughout the entire history of Western civilization, there have never been same sex marriage. Even in ancient Greece, marriage was always between a man and a woman. If you want to break that four millennium long tradition, now you have to allow everything.

Rebar on February 24, 2010 at 12:47 AM

Ric isn’t a liberal Republican, Chris underscore person. This is his blog.

The usual reaction is to take Progressives at face value, considering them good people who are trying to help but occasionally err by going to excess. This is wrong, exactly backwards in fact. The only people they are trying to help are themselves, and they are taking advantage of others’ weakness to aggrandize themselves and inflate their own importance. Call them what they are: cynical opportunists capitalizing on the misfortunes of others, and excusing it with sanctimonious blather. Conceding the moral high ground to people whose morality is only a few verbs deep is a mistake that has always, in the past, led to poverty and mass graves.

He’s not really the refuse to object forever type I don’t think.

happyfeet on February 24, 2010 at 12:53 AM

The assertion that we are all captives of some agenda, which we must accept in full or reject utterly, is the language of identity politics, and of totalitarianism. The Fischer criticism of Hot Air demonstrates the foolishness of assuming that every member of an identity group is party to some kind of agenda. If there’s a “Christian agenda,” then either Salem Communications or Bryan Fischer was not invited to the meetings.

We can be united in our appreciation for liberty… and this requires respect for the individual, just as the embrace of collectivism ultimately brings contempt. You can’t believe what I do about the transcendent rights of the individual, and the limitless potential of free men and women, while simultaneously assuming you can judge their innermost thoughts by their sexual preference, or the color of their skin. Rejecting gay conservatives because they disagree with me about marriage would be crawling back into the walled compound of my little tribe, and expecting them to do likewise. Each tribe would then resume shoving the wrecking ball of the State at the others, until someone gets flattened. That’s not the game conservatives, or Americans, should be playing.

So well put Dr. Zero, so completely well put.

Thank you.

AprilOrit on February 24, 2010 at 12:53 AM

America has long been described as a melting pot, or in more derogatory terms as a mongrel nation. It is true, in a sense. Why has a hodgepodge of ethnicities, religions, ethos and ways of thinking become the most powerful country on Earth? Because it is an idea; the common rule of law in the Constitution that says for all our differences we are one. It says that each person has value and the right to lead their life as they choose, as long as they do not actively harm someone else. This idea is being destroyed by our leaders, whether with intent or just in pure power hunger.

There are many, including some commenting on this thread, that seek to destroy this unity. Forget your petty agendas and prepare to go kick some nanny a$$ in November.

GnuBreed on February 24, 2010 at 1:00 AM

Homosexuality is not a conservative value, it’s a sin.

inchdeep

Therefore if you are not a homosexual, then you do not sin. Or are your sins just not as bad then and not worth mentioning, compared to those uber bad homo sins.

Irrelevant.

Fact is, throughout the entire history of Western civilization, there have never been same sex marriage. Even in ancient Greece, marriage was always between a man and a woman. If you want to break that four millennium long tradition, now you have to allow everything.

Rebar on

Completely relevant, when people act like gay people are the biggest threat to marriage and the country, when the general state of marriage in our country as a whole is far more of an factor. People certainly seem to want to put more effort into going after them pesky gays, than doing anything about a 50 percent divorce rate.

Isnt it more than a bit ironic, that you bring up ancient Greece, where homosexual activity was extremely common, so much that the slang word for butt sex is “greek”

With arguments like these, I just cant help but have sympathy for some gay people.

firepilot on February 24, 2010 at 1:02 AM

He’s not really the refuse to object forever type I don’t think.

happyfeet on February 24, 2010 at 12:53 AM

I thought he was sincere; but it takes two to truce.

Chris_Balsz on February 24, 2010 at 1:14 AM

Completely relevant, when people act like gay people are the biggest threat to marriage and the country, when the general state of marriage in our country as a whole is far more of an factor. People certainly seem to want to put more effort into going after them pesky gays, than doing anything about a 50 percent divorce rate.

Isnt it more than a bit ironic, that you bring up ancient Greece, where homosexual activity was extremely common, so much that the slang word for butt sex is “greek”

firepilot on February 24, 2010 at 1:02 AM

50% divorce rate means 50% of married couples don’t divorce, you do understand that right? Or does some magical percentage have to be crossed then it’s ok to destroy the very meaning of marriage.

And I brought up ancient Greece for exactly that reason – even with rampant homosexual activity, they still didn’t allow same sex marriage. You have to ask why that was.

Rebar on February 24, 2010 at 1:15 AM

Completely relevant, when people act like gay people are the biggest threat to marriage and the country, when the general state of marriage in our country as a whole is far more of an factor. People certainly seem to want to put more effort into going after them pesky gays, than doing anything about a 50 percent divorce rate

.

Very well. Let’s put aside the gay marriage issue. What do you propose to do about a 50% heterosexual divorce rate?

Chris_Balsz on February 24, 2010 at 1:15 AM

Therefore if you are not a homosexual, then you do not sin. Or are your sins just not as bad then and not worth mentioning, compared to those uber bad homo sins.

firepilot on February 24, 2010 at 1:02 AM

Gluttony is a sin. I’m sure everybody will eagerly support government’s active involvement in improving our eating decisions.

stldave on February 24, 2010 at 1:17 AM

Other than dog whistle comments, do you guys have any other secret codes by which you communicate in public?

The Race Card on February 23, 2010 at 10:51 PM

Is that all you’ve got? Really? There’s enough bullshit to go around without your buck-fifty-nine’s worth. You really must enjoy stirring the shit-kettle. Sad for you and your smarmy racial-tinted glasses.

Pot? Kettle? Please allow me to introduce myself…

Blake, you are making the case against yourself… thanks for that.

hillbillyjim on February 24, 2010 at 1:19 AM

The Race Card on February 23, 2010 at 10:51 PM

If you would quit showing your ass at every opportunity, you might be taken seriously. You someetimes have good contributions here, but you overshadow them with your big-ass chip on your shoulder.

Be somebody.

hillbillyjim on February 24, 2010 at 1:31 AM

Very well. Let’s put aside the gay marriage issue. What do you propose to do about a 50% heterosexual divorce rate?

Chris_Balsz on February 24, 2010 at 1:15 AM

It’s a misnomer. Look up the stats. It was never quite 50% and it’s hasn’t been near that in almost 2 decades. If you factor out quickie marriages by young people who probably never should have married to begin with it drops even more. Take out the divorce rate of 2nd and 3rd marriages and it drops even more. The value of marriage shouldn’t be judged based on the percentage of people who suck at it or never made an effort.

Rocks on February 24, 2010 at 1:31 AM

why do i feel like im getting gays shoved down my throat every time i log into this freakin sight now! ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!!

jonnyshocko on February 24, 2010 at 1:38 AM

why do i feel like im getting gays shoved down my throat every time i log into this freakin sight now! ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!!

jonnyshocko on February 24, 2010 at 1:38 AM

Ummm….Projection? Just “spitballin’” doncha know.

hillbillyjim on February 24, 2010 at 1:43 AM

I don’t care a whit about your color, your race, your sexual preference, or whether you like Coca-cola or Pepsi. I just don’t care.

What I do care about is seeing our nation withstand the current and ongoing assault on our liberties and our Constitution. It doesn’t make for a hill of beans whether or not you think the Constitution was God-inspired or a lucky fluke of history. What does matter is whether or not we let it flourish or die.

Get in the game, and make yourself relevant. Please.

hillbillyjim on February 24, 2010 at 1:56 AM

Please tolerate Ryan Sorba.

You can only be tolerant if you disagree.

Don’t forget young and old people in California said no to gay marriage.

As for all things gay, I think it’s learned behavior in 2.3% of the 5% of the population that is gay. In another 2.0% I think it’s the desire for easy sex – down low sex – “are you a top or a bottom?” hey “what’s up” (as he winks).

An in .7% of the 5% of the population that is gay I think it could be a biological anomaly.

Don’t forget some mountain goats are gay just because they can’t get chicks.

father on February 24, 2010 at 2:14 AM

Dr Zero strikes out. If we don’t like their agenda … what are they doing there? It’s not about their private behavior, but their public platform (which is not conservative).

virgo on February 24, 2010 at 2:14 AM

Hotair must be advertising to a broad audience, because things are changing here…rapidly.

Is “Vyce” writing the rules of Hotair now?

Well, if the tolerance of guys like Doctor Zero or Allah offends you, please, do leave. If their insistence that homosexuals aren’t subhuman means that they’ve breached “true conservative” values or “Judeo-Christian history ethics”, then maybe this blog isn’t for you.

Vyce on February 24, 2010 at 12:00 AM

balkanmom2 on February 24, 2010 at 2:17 AM

Don’t forget some mountain goats are gay just because they can’t get chicks.

father on February 24, 2010 at 2:14 AM

Naaaaa—aaaaaaa—aaaaaa.

So, you’re quite the stud, I must assume.

Heh. Keep the comedy coming, father dearest.

hillbillyjim on February 24, 2010 at 2:18 AM

I don’t care a whit about your color, your race, your sexual preference, or whether you like Coca-cola or Pepsi. I just don’t care.

What I do care about is seeing our nation withstand the current and ongoing assault on our liberties and our Constitution. It doesn’t make for a hill of beans whether or not you think the Constitution was God-inspired or a lucky fluke of history. What does matter is whether or not we let it flourish or die.

Get in the game, and make yourself relevant. Please.

hillbillyjim on February 24, 2010 at 1:56 AM

+10

I have (and have had) any number of gay (and probably gay) coworkers. Their personal preferences, blatant or not, had nothing to do with how well they did their jobs. And that’s all that matters. I have a couple of gay family members. Their personal preferences have nothing to do with my love for them.

Somebody said that homosexuality is the greatest sin. Wrong. According to the Bible, sin is sin is sin. Paul said that homosexual behavior is no different than idolatry (i.e., loving your XBox more than God). Leviticus 4 outlines the sacrifices that must be made to atone for the sin one commits unawares – for example, your shoe brushing the body of a dead bird, making you ritually unclean.

We’re all sinners in need of a Savior. But folks, that has little to do with economics. Jesus wasn’t a capitalist (see the “clearing the Temple” episode). We’ll all have to give an account, I believe. For that I trust in Almighty God’s mercy (and tremble at His justice).

IN THE MEANTIME, IN THIS LIFE, there are folks with fundamentally different views on the role and scope of government. I believe that if they get their way, my children will have a poorer quality of life. I want to stop them, or at least, slow them down, blunt their impact. If you’re willing to work at my side, I frankly don’t care how you spend your off time.

Oh – as to Coke or Pepsi…. whichever is on sale.

skydaddy on February 24, 2010 at 2:26 AM

Dr Zero strikes out. If we don’t like their agenda … what are they doing there? It’s not about their private behavior, but their public platform (which is not conservative).

virgo on February 24, 2010 at 2:14 AM

Yes. Let’s forget about stopping the liberal freight-train. It’s much more important for you to be able to pat yourself on the back and to hell with the rest. Mmmm mmmm mmmm.

There are principles, and there is reality. Somewhere, there is balance. Losing the war to win a silly battle is not a prudent course of action, in this hillbilly’s humble-but-always-correct opinion.

hillbillyjim on February 24, 2010 at 2:28 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3